delete_sheet

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

destructiveHint=true already tells the agent this is a destructive write, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: all visuals on the sheet are removed and a backup is automatically created first. That recoverability detail is not derivable from annotations or schema. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about permissions or whether the backup must be named/retrieved.

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?

Three short lines: purpose first, then a clearly flagged WARNING with the consequence and the safety net. Every sentence earns its place and the risk is front-loaded rather than buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations plus description cover the mutation's risk profile well. The only minor gap is that the description does not mention prerequisites such as required permissions on the analysis.

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% for both analysis_id and sheet_id, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 a sheet from a QuickSight analysis'), which immediately separates it from add_sheet, rename_sheet, and replicate_sheet. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the nearest sibling, delete_empty_sheets, so it stops short of a 5.

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 by the operation name and the destructive warning, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the alternative bulk sibling delete_empty_sheets. The warning implies 'use deliberately,' which is thin guidance.

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