merge_cells

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool merges cells but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as content handling (only top-left content kept), the effect on existing merges, or that it is a write operation. The mention of gridSpan and vMerge is cryptic and not explained.

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 very concise (two sentences), which is good for conciseness, but it lacks necessary detail for a tool with five undocumented parameters. It is too short to be effective.

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 (5 params, no schema descriptions, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected output or handle edge cases like invalid ranges. The output schema exists but the description does not reference it.

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?

The description does not explain any of the five parameters (table_index, start_row, start_col, end_row, end_col). With 0% schema coverage, the description should provide mapping or syntax, but it only mentions 'rectangular range' without defining bounds inclusion or order.

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 a rectangular range of cells') and the resource (cells), making the purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish from other table operations or clarify that merging typically combines cells into one.

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 (e.g., for combining cells) or when not to (e.g., if cells are already merged). There is no mention of prerequisites or alternative tools like split_table.

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