Delete sheet

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond them by stating that all sheet contents are destroyed and by disclosing a cross-workbook dependency that blocks the operation. It still doesn't say whether deletion is recoverable/undoable.

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, no filler. The destructive scope is stated first and the failure condition follows, so the most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is destroyed and the blocking condition. The remaining gap is parameter documentation, which is a schema-level omission rather than a description-level one.

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% for two required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. 'sheet' is implied by the tool wording, but nothing clarifies whether it is a name, index, or path-qualified reference, and 'path' is never addressed.

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 sheet') plus the blast radius ('and everything on it'), which distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like delete_rows_or_columns, delete_chart, and delete_pivot_table. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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?

Adds a concrete precondition and failure mode: deletion fails while slicers elsewhere reference its PivotTables or tables. That tells the agent when this call will not succeed, but it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit 'use X instead' routing.

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