Permanently removes a worksheet from an open workbook. Use it to clean up sheets, but verify formulas referencing it first.
Delete a worksheet from the workbook. This removes its contents permanently and can break formulas referencing it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sheetName | Yes | Name of the worksheet to delete. | |
| workbookId | No | Target workbook ID from list_workbooks. Optional when only one workbook is connected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two consequential behaviors: the removal is permanent and it can break formulas that reference the sheet. It omits other relevant traits such as whether the operation can be undone, what error occurs for a missing sheet or the last remaining sheet, and what is returned.
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?
Two short sentences, verb and resource front-loaded, followed immediately by the risk. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.
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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the essential purpose and the main hazard. The only meaningful gaps are edge-case behavior (last sheet, nonexistent name) and confirmation expectations, which are secondary for a tool this small.
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 100%, so sheetName and the optional workbookId are already documented in the schema, including the list_workbooks sourcing hint. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline for fully documented schemas.
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 and resource ("Delete a worksheet from the workbook"), which cleanly separates it from add_worksheet and update_worksheet in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or contrasting scope, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers this is the tool for removing a sheet. The warning about permanent removal and broken formulas acts as an implicit 'only if you mean it' guard, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative (e.g. clear_range to empty a sheet without deleting it).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.