merge_table_cells

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('merge cells') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation (likely overwriting cell content), permission requirements, error conditions (e.g., invalid ranges), or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, error handling, and output expectations. For a mutation tool with significant parameter requirements, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 for all 6 parameters. It mentions 'rectangular area' which hints at 'start_row', 'start_col', 'end_row', and 'end_col', but doesn't explain their semantics (e.g., zero-based indexing, inclusive/exclusive bounds). It also doesn't clarify 'filename' (e.g., document path) or 'table_index' (e.g., which table in the document). This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 ('merge cells') and the target ('in a rectangular area of a table'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'merge_table_cells_horizontal' and 'merge_table_cells_vertical' by implying a more general rectangular merge, though not explicitly contrasting them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'merge_table_cells_horizontal' or 'merge_table_cells_vertical'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing table, or exclusions, like not working on non-rectangular selections.

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