map_delete_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one key constraint ('Cannot delete the last remaining sheet'), but it doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent, cascades to associated data, or affects the current view. The confirm parameter in the schema already signals destructiveness, giving partial credit.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding a key restriction without wasted words. Every word earns its place.

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 delete tool, the description covers the essential purpose and a critical edge case. However, it lacks usage context and does not describe error behaviors when the last sheet is attempted, which is a minor gap but not severe given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with both 'id' and 'confirm' documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it relies entirely on the schema without enhancing understanding of the parameters.

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 the specific verb 'delete' with the resource 'sheet', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like map_delete_node or map_delete_sticky. The added constraint 'Cannot delete the last remaining sheet' further clarifies the tool's scope and behavior.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like map_clear or map_delete_node. The description only states a limitation but offers no context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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