unmerge-excel-range

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's responsibility is to add context beyond these. It adds 'No request body' and the inverse relationship, which is useful. However, it omits potential data consequences (e.g., unmerging retains only top-left cell values), which would be valuable for a destructive operation. It provides some additional context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 single sentence plus a concise tip, with the action front-loaded ('Unmerge an Excel range.') and the clarifying tip immediately following. There is no fluff or redundant information; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 operation with well-documented parameters and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what the tool does and references its inverse. A minor gap is the lack of explanation about data preservation after unmerging, but that is not critical given the annotations and the straightforward nature of the operation.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the vague 'given range', which loosely maps to the 'address' parameter. Since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden, the description adds minimal value, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 specific verb and resource (unmerge Excel range) and clarifies that it reverses merged cells into individual cells, explicitly calling out the inverse relationship with merge-excel-range. It also notes 'No request body', which further clarifies the operation's scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools without ambiguity.

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 implicitly provides usage guidance by naming the inverse tool (merge-excel-range), allowing an agent to understand when to use this tool (to unmerge) vs the sibling (to merge). It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative scenarios, but the inverse reference gives clear context for selection.

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