unmerge-excel-range

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, and the description adds behavioral detail that the operation targets 'any merged cells' and reverts them 'back to individual cells.' It also states 'No request body,' which is useful. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences plus a tip. Every sentence adds value: it states the action, clarifies the scope, notes the request body requirement, and references the sibling tool. No wasted words.

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, the schema's full parameter coverage, and the destructive annotation, the description is largely adequate. It could add a note about data retention (e.g., which cell value is kept), but that is a minor gap. The 'inverse' relationship and the scope of the operation are clearly communicated.

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 input schema already provides 100% descriptions for all parameters, including confirmation gates and ID guidance. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond a global 'No request body' note, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Unmerge an Excel range' and elaborates 'Unmerge any merged cells within the given range back into individual cells.' It also explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling tool by calling itself the 'Inverse of merge-excel-range,' which is a strong differentiator.

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 usage context by noting this is the inverse of merge-excel-range, implying when to use it. It also adds the practical note 'No request body.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternative tools (e.g., clear-excel-range), so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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