remove_conditional_format_rules

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. However, it does not mention the dry_run parameter's preview behavior or clarify what constitutes a 'broken' rule, both of which are behavioral traits beyond the annotation. The two removal modes add some context, but the description remains thin on side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and two modes efficiently.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, a destructive annotation, and no output schema, the description is slightly underspecified. It lacks mention of the dry_run preview flag, the return value, and the recommended workflow of inspecting rules first (sibling inspect_conditional_format_rules exists). However, the core operation is clear enough for basic usage, so it is minimally viable.

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. It partially explains the rule_indexes and broken_only parameters via the phrase 'by index or remove all broken ones', but does not describe dry_run, filepath, or sheet_name semantics. Param names are self-evident for the latter two, but dry_run remains unexplained. The description adds some value but does not fully cover the schema's 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 clearly specifies the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'worksheet conditional formatting rules', with explicit scoping via 'by index or remove all broken ones'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_conditional_format_rules (read operation) and remove_data_validation_rules (different resource).

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 gives some context about the two operating modes (by index or broken-only), but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over inspecting rules first, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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