Delete Table

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

The annotation already marks the operation destructive, and the description adds valuable nuance: only the table definition is removed while the underlying cell data is preserved. It also mentions a JSON confirmation return. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact Args section and a short Returns note. Every line earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 three-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the operation, parameter meanings, defaults, and return type. It does not specify the exact confirmation payload or error behavior, but those gaps are minor given the simple scope and the destructiveHint annotation.

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 coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters, including the active-workbook and active-sheet defaults and which table is removed. One minor flaw: it says table_name is required while the schema has no required parameters, giving an agent conflicting signals if it checks both.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a table's definition') and adds the key nuance 'keeping the underlying cell data'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_worksheet or clear_range, and it is not a tautology of the tool name.

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 first sentence gives clear operational context: use this when you want to remove a table definition but keep its cell data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as delete_worksheet, so the agent must infer routing from the operation semantics.

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