Delete rows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that deletion is destructive and irreversible, whether remaining rows shift up, or what permissions/account scopes are required — significant omissions for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the critical scoping detail (0-based) comes before anything else. It is arguably too terse to be fully useful, but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits irreversibility, row-shift behavior, and required-parameter guidance. An agent could invoke it correctly parameter-wise but lacks the behavioral context a mutation tool needs.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented, including the 0-based startIndex and numRows default of 1. The description's '0-based row index' phrasing merely echoes the schema, adding no new semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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 (delete) and resource (rows from a sheet), and the 0-based index detail narrows the operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like google_sheets_insert_rows and google_sheets_delete_sheet by the word 'rows', though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 on when to use this versus insert_rows, write, or batch_update, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid sheetId from google_sheets_get. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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