delete_row

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the destructive and irreversible nature, the cascade delete behavior, the confirm requirement, and the subtlety that hidden descendants may exist. This is thorough and goes beyond what typical mutation descriptions offer.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second provides the critical warning and prerequisite. It is concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the most important information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description fully covers the destructive scope, prerequisite reading, and the confirm requirement. It doesn't describe error handling or return values, but the presence of an output schema reduces that burden, and the core behavior is thoroughly explained for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the confirm parameter's requirement and purpose, but does not explicitly explain sheet_id or row_id. However, their names strongly imply their roles (sheet and row identifiers), providing partial compensation for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool deletes a row and all its child rows, using the specific verb 'delete' and clearly naming the resource. The all-caps emphasis on child rows distinguishes it from a simple row deletion and from sibling tools like update_row.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and not undoable, requires confirm=True, and advises reading the row and children first. It doesn't name an alternative tool, but few alternatives exist for a delete operation; the preconditions and safety guidance provide strong usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.