deduplicate_data

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds a note explicitly stating 'Destructive: modifies the workbook unless an `output_file` variant is implemented upstream.' This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the in-place modification and caveat about an alternative output variant. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Notes sections. The opening sentence states the core purpose in one line, and every subsequent line provides necessary details without redundancy. It is concise and information-dense.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters, return type, and the destructive behavior. It addresses the optional columns and the keep options. Given the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what to expect and the impact of using the tool. No significant gaps are apparent.

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 provides no descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description fully defines each parameter: file_path as 'Workbook path', sheet_name as 'Worksheet name', columns as 'Optional list of columns to consider for duplicates', and keep as 'Which duplicate to keep: first, last, or False'. This completely compensates for the missing schema descriptions and adds clear meaning.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove duplicate rows from a sheet', and adds an optional qualifier about using a subset of columns. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like find_duplicates, which likely only identifies duplicates rather than removing them.

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: use this when you need to remove duplicate rows. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as find_duplicates for identifying duplicates first. The guidance is adequate but not explicit about exclusions.

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