remove_numeric_characters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It provides useful behavioral context (preserves non-digits, returns True on success) but omits side effects such as whether the original file is modified, whether it is reversible, or if authentication is required. This is sufficient for basic use but lacks deeper safety and side-effect disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. There is no fluff or repetition of parameter names. It efficiently conveys the operation, scope, preservation behavior, and return value.

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 covers the core purpose and result, but lacks parameter syntax guidance and side-effect disclosure. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is minimally complete, but it does not fully equip the agent to use the tool confidently without additional assumptions.

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 for parameter meaning. It mentions 'specified range' and 'worksheet' but does not explain the expected format for _range (e.g., 'A1:B2') or worksheet (e.g., sheet name vs. index). The file_token is also not elaborated beyond being a token, which is implied by context.

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 uses a specific verb 'Removes' and clearly identifies the resource: numeric digit characters from cells in a specified worksheet range. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_symbols or remove_text_characters by explicitly focusing on digits and stating what is preserved.

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 states it removes digits while preserving letters, symbols, and whitespace, implying it should be used when only numbers need to be stripped. Sibling tools imply alternatives (e.g., remove_symbols for symbols), but the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over others, so it misses the full alternative guidance.

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