excel_delete_worksheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a destructive action ('Delete') but doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, requires confirmation, affects other worksheets, or has permission requirements. This leaves critical gaps for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource efficiently, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, error conditions, or what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation message or workbook state). Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool has only one parameter ('name'). The description doesn't add any details about the parameter (e.g., case sensitivity, exact worksheet name format, or error handling for non-existent names). Since single-parameter tools have a baseline of 4, the lack of compensation for low schema coverage results in a score of 3.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a worksheet from the current workbook'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'excel_add_worksheet' or 'excel_read_worksheet' beyond the obvious verb contrast, which prevents a perfect score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a workbook must be open), warn about irreversible deletion, or suggest using 'excel_read_worksheet' to verify content first. The description assumes context without explicit instructions.

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