merge_table_cells_horizontal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't reveal critical traits: whether this is a destructive mutation (likely yes, as merging alters table structure), what happens to content in merged cells (e.g., retention or loss), or error conditions (e.g., invalid indices). This is inadequate for a tool with clear mutation implications.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without 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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral risks, parameter usage, or output expectations. For a tool that modifies document structure, this lack of context could lead to incorrect or unsafe invocations by an agent.

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 by explaining parameters. It adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema names imply (e.g., 'filename', 'row_index'). Key details like what 'table_index' refers to, zero-based indexing, or the inclusive/exclusive nature of 'start_col' and 'end_col' are missing, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 horizontally') and the scope ('in a single row'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from the sibling 'merge_table_cells' (which might be more general) and 'merge_table_cells_vertical' (which handles vertical merging). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource (e.g., a document or table), though this is implied by the context of sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'merge_table_cells' or 'merge_table_cells_vertical'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing table) or exclusions (e.g., not applicable across multiple rows). This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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