delete_empty_sheets

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so the description carries meaningful extra weight: it discloses a cascade side effect ('automatically removes filter groups scoped to deleted sheets') and a safety net ('a backup is automatically created'). Those are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking a destructive bulk tool and are not derivable from the annotation.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action and scope before context, side effects and warning. The 'WARNING: This is destructive' clause partially restates the destructiveHint annotation, so it is slightly less economical than it could be, though pairing it with the backup note justifies 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, cascade behavior and backup creation. Minor gaps remain: no statement of required permissions, and no note of what happens when the analysis contains no empty sheets.

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 100% and both parameters (analysis_id, name_contains) are fully documented in the schema, including the default and case-insensitive behavior. The description's 'all empty sheets' phrasing only implicitly confirms the no-filter default, adding no real semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete all empty sheets') and operationalizes the target with '(0 visuals) from an analysis,' which an agent can act on immediately. It is clearly distinct from the single-sheet sibling delete_sheet by its bulk, predicate-based scope.

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?

Names the triggering situation explicitly ('clean up orphan sheets left by failed operations'), which is strong context. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it (e.g., prefer delete_sheet for a single named sheet) or mention any prerequisites such as permissions on the parent analysis.

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