delete_conditional_formatting

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

With no annotations, the description relies on its own wording to convey destructive behavior, which it does by stating 'Deletes' and noting it returns confirmation and current rule state. It doesn't disclose side effects like index shifting or irreversibility, but the primary destructive action is clear and the return behavior adds useful context.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary followed by a tidy Args list and Returns note. Every line adds value, and the length is appropriate for four parameters. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

All four parameters are described, including the optional sheet_name and its default behavior. The return type is also specified, and the output schema exists to cover return structure. The description provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description fully compensates with a detailed Args section: it provides types, required status, defaults (sheet_name defaults to null), and the important 0-based index note for rule_index. This is more informative than the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Deletes an existing conditional formatting rule by index on a sheet', which is a specific verb ('deletes') and resource ('conditional formatting rule') with the deletion mechanism ('by index'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like add_conditional_formatting and update_conditional_formatting.

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 clearly states the operation and its parameters, making it evident this is the deletion tool among conditional formatting siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of add/update, nor does it note that indices may shift after deletion, which would be helpful context for sequencing operations.

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