remove_column_group

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

With no annotations, the description effectively details the tool's effects: unwrapping children, removing a column, and deleting cells. It also warns about an error scenario, providing full behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the primary action and listing an error condition. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters with zero schema description, the description is incomplete. It omits essential parameter semantics and return values, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description only explains the group_name parameter by referencing the error condition. It does not describe the path or tablix_name parameters, which have 0% schema coverage and require explanation for correct usage.

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 it is the inverse of add_column_group, specifying the exact action: unraveling children, removing a column at position 0 and associated cells. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_row_group.

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 usage as an inverse operation and notes an error condition (if group_name only on row axis). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, though the inverse mention provides context.

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