delete_block_rows

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral detail: missing keys are silently ignored, sheet rows are also deleted (with the assumption of one block per sheet-row), and the special behavior when deleting all rows (last row kept and cells cleared) explained by an engine constraint. This goes far beyond the annotations to disclose real-world behavior and edge cases.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by key behavioral notes and an edge case. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or fluff, making it optimally concise and structured.

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 tool with two simple params and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what it deletes, how deletion works (by key), side effects on sheet rows, and the critical edge case of deleting all rows. This is sufficient for an agent to understand scope and limitations without further documentation.

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 no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must supply meaning. It clarifies that 'keys' are row keys used to select rows for deletion, but does not explain the format or structure of these keys (e.g., whether they are numeric IDs or string labels). The 'block' parameter is only implied as the target block identifier, with no additional detail. The description adds some meaning but leaves gaps.

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 'Delete rows from a block by their key', specifying the action (delete), resource (block rows), and method (by key). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_block_rows, move_block_row, and set_block_cells, which perform different operations on block rows.

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 provides context about side effects (deletes matching sheet rows) and an important edge case (keeps the last row when deleting all), which helps users understand when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving the usage boundaries implicit rather than explicit.

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