delete_named_range

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides a helpful note about parameter sourcing. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 that the tool has a simple parameter set (2 required parameters) with full schema coverage and an output schema exists (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, as a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error conditions, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents both parameters ('document_id' and 'named_range_id'). The description adds minimal value by noting that the 'named_range_id' comes from 'create_named_range', but this is a usage hint rather than semantic clarification. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 the action ('Delete') and resource ('a named range'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_range' or 'delete_comment', which are also deletion operations on different resources.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning that the named range ID comes from 'create_named_range', which hints at a prerequisite. However, it offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'delete_range' for non-named ranges) or any exclusions, leaving usage context largely implied.

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