remove_calculated_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the removal action, which implies a destructive operation (deletion). However, it does not clarify whether the field is permanently deleted or can be recovered, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., field must exist). The description is adequate but minimal.

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 that front-loads the action. Every word is necessary and there is no extraneous text.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists. Given the simplicity, the description is reasonably complete but could mention that the field must exist and that the operation may affect formulas depending on it. The output schema likely covers return values, so that is not a gap.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'field_name' with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying it's a 'previously added calculated field', clarifying that the field must exist. This provides context beyond the parameter name alone.

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 the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'calculated field', clearly stating the action and object. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_calculated_field' by implying the inverse operation. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., from the active worksheet or workbook).

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 implies the tool is for removing a calculated field that was previously added. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives. The sibling 'add_calculated_field' is the obvious counterpart, but no explicit comparison is made.

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