sheets_delete_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only adds the numeric-ID requirement and does not mention that deletion is irreversible, what data is affected, or any permission needs—critical 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word adds value, especially the 'not name' distinction.

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 is adequate for a simple delete operation but lacks important context such as irreversibility, potential errors (e.g., deleting the last sheet), or confirmation steps. Given the absence of annotations, more safety-related detail 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 0%, but the description clarifies sheet_id by specifying it's numeric and not a name. The spreadsheet_id parameter remains unexplained beyond its title, leaving some ambiguity about what value is expected.

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 a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('sheet/tab'), and clarifies the key constraint ('by numeric sheet ID, not name'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sheets_add_sheet and sheets_clear.

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 clear context: use this to delete a sheet/tab, and the 'not name' warning tells the agent what identifier to use. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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