delete_column_docx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive mutation. It notes the 0-indexed convention, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about data loss, reversibility, out-of-range col_index behavior, or required permissions on the file.

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?

A single tight sentence with the target (column of a docx table) front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is efficient about rather little.

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?

For a destructive, three-parameter mutation with no annotations, the definition is thin. The output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but it still omits which table is targeted (table_index semantics), preconditions, and any guidance on use vs. sibling tools.

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, yet it only clarifies col_index (0-indexed) and leaves file_path and table_index completely unexplained. Two of three parameters are undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (Menghapus/deletes) and resource (satu kolom dari tabel docx), which cleanly separates it from the sibling delete_row_docx and add_column_docx. It also pins the indexing convention (col_index, 0-indexed). It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it lands just short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as delete_row_docx or edit_table_docx for column removal. The only usage signal is what the agent infers from the tool name itself.

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