delete_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses destructive scope (nested tables removed), auto-backup mechanics including backup=False behavior, atomic validated save, and refusal when the document is open in Word.

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?

Each sentence adds distinct value: operation, index semantics, alternative action, and safety/backup behavior. It is dense but not padded, with the primary purpose front-loaded.

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?

The description is sufficient for a destructive table operation: it covers exactly how to target the table, what happens to nested content, how backups work, and an important failure condition. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's responsibility.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains table_index semantics and backup behavior, but file_path is left only implicit as a standard path parameter; still, the most context-heavy parameters are well covered.

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?

Describes a specific operation ('Delete a whole table and its contents') with a clear resource and scope. It also differentiates itself from set_cells by explicitly noting that clearing values while keeping the grid is a separate path.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: table_index is defined as a 0-based position in document order and references list_elements(type='tables') or get_document_view for lookup. It explicitly names the alternative set_cells for the case where the user wants to preserve the grid, making the selection criteria clear.

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