remove_data_validation_rules

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

The description adds context by mentioning the 'broken only' mode, but beyond that and the destructiveHint annotation, it does not disclose irreversibility, impact on dependent cells, or what constitutes 'broken'. The meaning of 'broken' is left ambiguous, which is a transparency gap.

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 redundant words. The phrase 'Remove worksheet data validation rules' is specific, and every word contributes to the purpose without wasted filler.

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?

This is a destructive tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, yet the description omits dry_run semantics, the definition of 'broken', and any reference to listing rules first (e.g., via inspect_data_validation_rules). The overall context is thin for a mutation tool, leaving the agent to guess critical operational details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It maps 'by index' to rule_indexes and 'broken ones' to broken_only, but it does not explain filepath, sheet_name, or the critical dry_run parameter. The dry_run omission is especially problematic for a destructive tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') with a clear resource ('worksheet data validation rules') and specifies two modes (by index, broken only), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_conditional_format_rules. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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?

Usage is implied from the verb and the mention of 'by index or remove all broken ones', but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_data_validation_rules. No prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context are provided.

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