merge-excel-range

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation nature is known. The description adds the `across`-dependent behavior (merging entire range vs. each row separately), which is useful. It does not describe side effects on cell contents or reversibility, but given annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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—two sentences plus a tip—and the critical `across` distinction is front-loaded within the tip. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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 tool is destructive and has no output schema, yet the description does not mention return values or what happens after merging (e.g., which cell retains data). It also doesn't address prerequisites like worksheet existence. While adequate for a simple operation, an agent might need additional details about the response or edge cases.

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 88%, but the description explicitly explains the `across` parameter's semantics (false merges whole range, true merges per row), which is not evident from the schema alone. It does not elaborate on other parameters, but those are path segments with clear schema descriptions, so the added value is substantial for the key parameter.

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 clear verb (merge) and resource (Excel range), and the tip clarifies that merging combines cells into one. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like unmerge-excel-range or other range operations, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to grasp.

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 tip provides specific use cases ('styled headers, banner rows, and report layouts'), giving implied context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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