Merge cells

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never mentions the key behavioral fact that merging discards all values except the anchor cell, and it says nothing about permissions or reversibility. With annotations present the bar is lower, but this still adds no context at all.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity is achieved by omission rather than by tight editing of richer 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?

For a destructive mutation with five parameters, 60% schema coverage, no output schema and 27 sibling tools, one sentence is not enough. An agent lacks any statement about data loss on merge, when unmerge is appropriate, or how merge_type interacts with the selected range.

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 only 60% (range, account, spreadsheet documented; action and merge_type rely on bare enums). The description's 'merge or unmerge' merely restates the action enum and 'in a range' restates the range parameter, contributing no format, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb pair (merge/unmerge) and resource (cells in a range), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not distinguish itself from any sibling such as format_range or set_filter, nor does it mention the spreadsheet context, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to merge versus when to unmerge, no preconditions (e.g. that a range must be selected/contiguous), and no named alternatives. The only implicit guidance is that one tool covers both directions, which mildly discourages the agent from hunting for an 'unmerge_cells' sibling, but that is inferred rather than stated.

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