Delete a sheet (tab) from a Rootr spreadsheet

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

The description adds critical context beyond annotations: 'Not recoverable' and suggests pre-deletion verification. annotations already indicate destructiveness, but the description enhances user awareness.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loades the action and necessary precautions.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior (irreversibility), and a cautionary note. No further details are needed.

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% with adequate descriptions for both parameters ('Sheet id to delete' and 'SPREADSHEET node id'). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, meeting the baseline for comprehensive schema.

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 explicitly states 'Delete one sheet (tab) from a Rootr spreadsheet by sheetId,' providing a clear verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like rootr_delete_node, rootr_delete_row, and rootr_create_sheet.

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?

The description advises 'read first to confirm,' implying a cautionary usage context for a destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like update_sheet or specify non-deletion scenarios.

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