sheets_merge_cells

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

The description simply restates the tool's name without adding behavioral context. While annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description does not disclose what happens to cell values after merging (e.g., only the top-left value is kept) or any side effects. It adds no value beyond the structured metadata.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb. It is appropriately sized and free of unnecessary words, though its brevity comes at the cost of essential details.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is technically minimal but incomplete. It fails to explain the merge types, the required range format, or how this tool relates to siblings like 'sheets_unmerge_cells' and 'sheets_get_merged_cells', leaving the agent without sufficient context for correct selection and invocation.

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 description does not mention any of the three required parameters (spreadsheetId, range, mergeType). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no explanation of how to specify the range or what each mergeType value means, making it impossible to correctly invoke the tool based solely on the description and 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 clearly states the action ('Merge cells') and the target resource ('a Google Sheet'), and it distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'sheets_unmerge_cells' which performs the opposite operation. The purpose is immediately understandable and specific enough for an agent to know what the tool does.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain the differences between the three merge types (MERGE_ALL, MERGE_ROWS, MERGE_COLUMNS) defined in the schema. An agent is left without direction on how to select the appropriate merge type or when merging is preferable to other cell-formatting tools.

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