merge_cells

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only the top-left value is kept, which is an important behavioral detail. However, it does not explain side effects such as deletion of other cell contents, formatting impact, or range contiguity requirements.

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, with one short sentence containing no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it omits necessary details about parameters, making it slightly too minimal.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover behavior, parameters, and return value. It partially covers behavior but misses parameter semantics completely and does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success indication).

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond their names. The 'range' parameter format (e.g., A1 notation) is not specified, and 'session_id' is not explained at all.

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) and resource (range), and includes a critical behavioral detail that only the top-left value is kept, distinguishing it from sibling tools like unmerge_cells.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clear_range or write_range. The usage is implied by the name and description, but no when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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