worksheet_structure

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already indicates destructive potential; the description adds value by specifying exactly which actions are destructive ('delete_rows/delete_cols') and advises documenting irreversible effects. This goes beyond the annotation and provides useful behavioral context. No contradiction exists.

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 concise and well-structured with an opening sentence, Args list, Returns note, and Notes section. It avoids unnecessary verbiage and makes key warning information easy to find. Some parameter details are vague, but the format itself is efficient.

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?

Despite a complex 16-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the description provides only a list of actions and parameter names plus one warning. It fails to document action-specific parameter requirements, coordinate system, units for height/width, or side effects beyond deletion. The return type note is minimal. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only groups parameters into vague categories ('Position arguments', 'Operation-specific params') without explaining usage. It does not clarify whether `count` is required for inserts, how start/end ranges interact with `rows`, or what `cols_list` expects. The action enum is self-explanatory, but the 16-parameter space is largely unexplained.

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 'Perform row/column insert/delete, grouping, and size adjustments' with specific verbs and a clear resource (worksheet rows/columns). This distinguishes it from many siblings like format_cells or read_cells, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it simply lists actions. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or cases where a sibling tool would be more appropriate. Given the large sibling set, this is a significant gap.

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