delete_doc_tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing the destructive nature, and it does explicitly state 'Deletes'. It also specifies the return value. However, it does not warn that the deletion is irreversible or mention any permissions or side effects on the document's content, which would be valuable 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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and organized into clear Args and Returns sections. Every line provides necessary information without fluff or repetition.

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 three-string-parameter delete operation, the description gives all the information needed to invoke it correctly, including how to discover tab IDs and what to expect in the response. It could be more complete with an explicit irreversible warning, but the provided context is sufficient for correct usage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters, and it does: user_google_email, document_id, and tab_id all get meaningful descriptions. The guidance to use inspect_doc_structure for tab IDs is especially helpful. The wording 'document to update' is slightly imprecise for a deletion tool, which is why this is not a 5.

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 specific verb ('Deletes'), a precise resource ('a tab from a Google Doc'), and the required identifier (tab ID). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like insert_doc_tab and update_doc_tab, and even references inspect_doc_structure for finding tab IDs.

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 makes clear this tool is for deleting tabs, and tells the agent to use inspect_doc_structure to find the correct tab_id. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus insert/update alternatives, but the deletion purpose is self-evident and the inspect guidance provides a concrete prerequisite.

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