mcp-gsheets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'merge cells' implies a destructive write operation, the description doesn't mention that this action cannot be undone automatically, that it may affect cell data, or what permissions are required. It also doesn't describe the response format or error conditions for this mutation operation.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core action and target. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for an agent to parse while still conveying the essential purpose.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters (all undocumented in schema), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the irreversible nature of cell merging, doesn't clarify parameter meanings, and provides no information about return values or error handling. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'spreadsheetId', 'range', or 'mergeType' represent. The description doesn't explain that 'range' should be in A1 notation, what the mergeType enum values mean, or how to specify a spreadsheet. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 cells') and target resource ('Google Sheet'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'sheets_unmerge_cells' which performs the inverse operation, nor does it clarify how it differs from other formatting tools like 'sheets_format_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when merging is appropriate versus other formatting options, nor any prerequisites or constraints for using this operation. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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