merge_table_cells_vertical

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., cell content behavior, if merging is destructive, if cells must be contiguous, or any permission requirements). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentence with no waste, which is concise. However, it is overly terse and sacrifices necessary information for brevity. A well-structured description should balance succinctness with completeness.

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 complexity (5 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain return values, preconditions, or the effect of merging, making it incomplete for reliable use.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (doc_id, table_index, col_index, start_row, end_row). The agent has no insight into the meaning or constraints of these parameters beyond their names, which is a critical gap.

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 'Merge cells vertically in a column' clearly indicates the action (merge) and the resource (cells in a column), but it lacks specificity about which column or table context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like merge_table_cells_horizontal by specifying vertical direction, so it's adequate but not excellent.

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 versus alternatives like merge_table_cells or merge_table_cells_horizontal. The description does not state prerequisites, restrictions, or context for usage, leaving the agent uninformed about selection criteria.

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