delete_row

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'delete', which implies destruction, but does not disclose whether the operation is irreversible, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to dependent data, or what the response looks like. With zero behavioral context, an agent cannot predict the side effects.

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 very short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It consists of a single phrase with no structure or additional context. There is no sentence that earns its place because there is essentially only one short clause, which does not satisfy the information needs of an agent.

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?

While the tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), the description is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly in the broader context. It does not explain what 'row' refers to (e.g., row index in a table, in a spreadsheet, in a template), what the effect is on surrounding data, or how it relates to sibling tools. The minimalism leaves too much ambiguity for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema provides only the parameter name 'row' with type 'number', and no description. The tool description says 'the specified row', which does add a slight hint that the number identifies which row to delete, but it is just a restatement of the parameter name. It does not explain the range, indexing (0-based vs 1-based), or any constraints. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it barely does.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Delete the specified row.' It is not a tautology, but it is extremely generic. There is no mention of what kind of row or in what context (e.g., which table, template, or data structure), and it does not differentiate from siblings like 'insert_row' or other row-related tools. It is minimally clear but lacking specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion criteria. An agent has no information about when this is the appropriate tool to invoke among the many siblings, so the usage guidance is essentially absent.

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