Update (Replace) CSVBox Sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it excels. It discloses the destructive PUT semantics (unnamed items are DELETED), which collections are affected (virtual_columns, validation_functions, data_transforms), the critical empty-array-deletes vs omit-preserves distinction, and invalidates `_delete`. The safety warnings cover all dangerous behavior an agent needs to avoid.

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 long, but every sentence earns its place for a destructive operation — the PUT-authoritative semantics, collection scope, and empty-vs-omit warning are all essential safety information. Core purpose is front-loaded before the behavioral warnings. Slightly verbose, justified by the risk profile.

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 mutation with zero annotations and no output schema, this is complete. It covers what gets destroyed, the collection semantics, the invalid `_delete`, and pre-validates via validate_schema. Return value is minimally stated ('Returns the API response'), which is acceptable given no output schema exists. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (sheet_license_key, sheet) are already documented inline, warranting baseline 3. The description adds some value by clarifying the destructive behavior of collections inside the `sheet` object, but it doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema's 'full replacement CSVBox sheet object'.

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 ('Replace'), resource ('an existing CSVBox sheet'), and HTTP method (PUT /1.1/sheet/{sheet_license_key}'). The title reinforces the replace-vs-patch distinction, and the description names patch_sheet for partial updates, making it distinguishable from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives with conditions: 'use patch_sheet to remove a single item', declares `_delete` is not valid here, and instructs 'Run validate_schema with mode put first'. This gives clear when-to/when-not guidance and names the safety pre-check, which is ideal for a destructive tool.

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