Delete Named Range

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

The destructiveness is already declared by destructiveHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. It does add the return type ('JSON confirmation') and marks the 'name' parameter as required, which is useful. However, it omits any mention of side effects, failure behavior if the range doesn't exist, or whether the deletion is irreversible beyond what the annotation implies.

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 extremely concise: a single action statement followed by a compact argument list and a return line. It is fully front-loaded and contains no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 delete operation, the description covers the core action and parameter semantics, and the destructiveHint annotation covers safety. However, it does not describe error cases, permissions, or the effect on dependent formulas/cells, which could leave an agent uncertain about edge scenarios. It is minimally viable but not rich.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain both parameters. It provides meaning for 'workbook' (name or path, None = active workbook) and states 'name' is required (though the schema marks it optional with a default). This adds value but remains terse and does not elaborate on formats or constraints beyond that.

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 'Delete a named range' with a clear verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling operations like create, update, or read by the verb itself, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_named_range or list_named_ranges. It simply declares the action without context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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