delete_range

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a destructive operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, mentioning the target ('document or tab') but not specifying permissions required, whether deletions are reversible, or how the tool handles errors. It doesn't contradict annotations, but provides only basic supplemental information.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning, with zero waste or redundancy.

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 the tool has a destructive annotation and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, for a destructive operation with 4 parameters, it lacks details about side effects, error conditions, or usage context that would help an agent use it safely and correctly. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, but more behavioral context would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 75%, with clear descriptions for document_id, start_index, and end_index. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining tab_id usage or range behavior. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for the 25% gap but doesn't need to heavily supplement.

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 content') and target ('within a specified range from a document or tab'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from other deletion tools like delete_comment or delete_named_range by focusing on content ranges rather than comments or named ranges. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from bulk_update_google_doc or replace_all_text which might also modify content.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to delete_table_column, delete_table_row, or other content modification tools like replace_all_text. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent with minimal context for selection.

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