Add, remove or change a worksheet

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that renaming rewrites formulas and defined names, that removal is irreversible and breaks external references with #REF!, and that sheet protection is only obfuscation with easily recovered passwords. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive, state-changing tool.

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 well-organized: operation list first, then action-specific consequences, then supported formats. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and there is no filler or repetition of the schema's parameter names.

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?

Given the tool's complexity — seven parameters and eight possible actions — the description covers the critical edge cases: irreversible removal, formula rewriting on rename, Excel protection caveats, and file format compatibility. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required in the description.

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?

The schema already documents all 7 parameters with descriptions and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the exact allowed values for the action parameter (add, remove, rename, move, hide, show, protect, unprotect) and by explaining the consequences that distinguish one action from another.

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 opens with a specific set of verbs and a clear resource: 'Adds, removes, renames, moves, hides, shows, protects or unprotects a worksheet.' This fully disambiguates it from sibling tools that read or edit other workbook parts, and the title reinforces the same scope.

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?

The description makes the tool's worksheet-level scope clear and includes a strong 'ask the user first' directive for removal. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool versus sibling tools like xlide_manage_rows_columns or xlide_manage_table.

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