merge-excel-range

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the across parameter behavior and stating that merging combines cells into one (destructive). Annotations already mark destructiveHint true, so the description confirms and expands on this without contradiction.

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?

At two sentences plus a tip, the description is very concise. It front-loads the key action and immediately provides a helpful parameter detail. No superfluous content.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint) plus high schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core behavior and the critical parameter. The lack of output schema is acceptable as merge typically returns a success status.

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 high (86%), and the description enriches the 'body' parameter by explaining how the 'across' boolean changes the merge behavior. Other parameters are standard path identifiers and need no extra explanation.

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 tool merges cells in a given range into a single cell, with specific behavior based on the 'across' parameter. It also provides concrete use cases (headers, banners, reports) that distinguish it from sibling tools like clear, format, sort, and unmerge.

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 tip explains the effect of the 'across' parameter and mentions typical uses (styled headers, etc.), but does not explicitly state when to avoid merging or compare it to alternatives like formatting. However, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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