delete_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state a key failure condition ('Fails if it is the only sheet left') and the path behavior, but it does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, how saving works, or any side effects on formulas or references. This is somewhat transparent but leaves important gaps for a destructive operation.

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 ultra-compact: one sentence stating the action and a two-item Args list. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (the action and the failure condition) is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, the main failure mode, and parameter usage. It doesn't explain the return value, but an output schema exists and the operation is straightforward. It's complete enough for the agent to select and invoke 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%, so the Args section is the primary source of parameter meaning. It provides meaningful semantics for 'path' (path to file or preloaded file, omit if only one file) and clarifies 'sheet' (name to delete). The description adds value beyond the bare schema titles, especially for 'path'.

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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'sheet from a workbook', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like delete_rows or delete_columns. The additional constraint 'Fails if it is the only sheet left' further clarifies the operation's scope.

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 implies when to use the tool (to delete a sheet) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like deleting rows or columns. The note about omitting 'path' when only one file is configured gives some usage context, but there's no direct 'when to use vs. other tools' guidance.

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