delete_named_range

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds the context of scope types (workbook-level vs sheet-scoped) which is useful behavioral nuance. However, it does not disclose effects on dependents, the dry_run safety option, or reversibility, so the value added beyond annotations is moderate.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action verb and contains only the essential distinction about scope. 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 destructive tool with 4 unspecified parameters and no output schema, the one-sentence description is too thin. It omits important operational context such as the use of dry_run, behavior when the named range doesn't exist, or how it differs from generic range deletion. The input schema offers no descriptions, so the overall tool context is incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It partially explains scope_sheet via 'workbook-level or sheet-scoped', but does not clarify dry_run, name, or filepath. Given 4 parameters, this is insufficient compensation for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'named range', with a specific distinction between workbook-level and sheet-scoped. This differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_range (cell ranges) and aligns with related named range tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with delete_range for cell ranges. Usage is only implied by the name and description.

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