Delete Rows

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

The description adds value beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying that rows below are shifted up, effectively explaining the data manipulation effect. It also discloses the return type (JSON confirmation). While it doesn't mention irreversibility or performance implications, the core behavioral detail of shifting rows is genuinely useful and goes beyond the annotation's simple destructive flag.

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 a compact docstring that opens with a one-line summary, then lists parameters and return value in a clear, scannable format. Every sentence serves a purpose—no fluff or redundancy. The structure front-loads the core action and then provides necessary details, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation and the presence of the destructiveHint annotation, the description covers all essential aspects: what it deletes, how it affects rows, parameter semantics, and return type. It lacks explicit notes on irreversible changes or edge cases (e.g., deleting all rows), but these are arguably covered by the annotation and the straightforward nature of the tool. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to call the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates for each parameter: workbook, sheet, row_index (clearly marked as required and 1-based), and count (with its purpose). It also provides default behavior for workbook/sheet (None = active). This is a thorough explanation that the schema alone does not supply, making it highly informative for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the action (delete) on resource (rows) and the effect (shifting rows below up). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_columns and delete_worksheet by specifying rows, and mentions the ability to delete multiple rows via count. The verb and resource are specific, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as clear_range or delete_worksheet. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., workbook must be open) or conditions that would make this tool the right choice. The absence of any usage or exclusive guidance means the agent receives no direction on selecting this over siblings.

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