delete_cell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses equivalence to remove_cell, but says nothing about irreversibility, out-of-range index handling, or side effects of a destructive operation, all of which matter here.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the alias relationship is stated immediately. Brevity is appropriate, though the terseness leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but for a destructive tool with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the description omits too much. It should at minimum state that the cell is permanently removed and clarify the index.

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% and the only parameter (index) is undocumented. The description names the argument but adds no meaning beyond the schema — not whether indexing is 0-based, not valid ranges, not what happens for an invalid index.

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 identifies the tool as an alias of remove_cell(index), which conveys its purpose (removing a cell by index) and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_cell, replace_cell, and read_cell. It relies on the reader knowing remove_cell, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

'Backward-compatible alias' implies this exists only for legacy callers and that remove_cell is the preferred sibling, which is useful routing guidance. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus remove_cell, or that new code should avoid it.

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