delete_rows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does exceptionally well: it discloses inclusive range semantics, vertical merge re-rooting, auto-backup behavior, atomic validated saves, and the refusal to operate on Word-open documents.

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?

Every clause earns its place. The description is information-dense with no filler, front-loading the core action and then adding the highest-impact caveats.

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 core semantics, side effects, backup behavior, and a key operational constraint. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but minor gaps around null end semantics and table indexing remain.

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. It adds useful meaning for start/end ('inclusive') and backup ('skips rotation only'), but it does not explain the behavior when end is null/default, nor how table_index is indexed relative to list_tables or get_table.

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 states a specific action and object: 'Delete rows start..end (inclusive)'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_columns, delete_table, and insert_rows.

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 intended use is clear from the name and phrasing, but the description does not explicitly explain when to choose this over alternatives like delete_columns or delete_table. It notes an exclusion (refuses documents open in Word) but gives no alternative guidance.

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