delete_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait: it fails if it's the only sheet left. However, it omits critical mutation details such as whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable, what happens to cell data/formulas referencing the sheet, and whether a backup is created. The 'backup' parameter exists in the schema but is not explained in the description.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a key constraint, and then a well-organized Args section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague language.

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 the basic operation and one failure mode, which is a good start for a 3-parameter mutation tool. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter coverage (missing 'backup'), it leaves an agent guessing about backup behavior and the permanence of deletion. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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, but it only partially does. The 'path' and 'sheet' parameters are explained in the Args section, providing useful meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the 'backup' parameter is completely undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving one-third of parameters opaque.

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+resource ('Delete a sheet from a workbook') that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_rows, delete_columns, and copy_sheet. An agent can immediately understand the operation from the first sentence.

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 mentions a failure condition ('Fails if it is the only sheet left'), which is useful guardrail context. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives like clear_range or delete_rows, nor does it state prerequisites. Usage is implied by the tool name and description but not explicitly guided.

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