sheets_merge_cells

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

The annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the description does not repeat that. However, it adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens to cell values after merging or whether already-merged ranges are handled gracefully.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though it could have used some of its brevity to add useful context.

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 simple three-parameter tool with annotations covering idempotency and destruction risk, the description is close to minimally viable. But it still omits important context about merge behavior, return/effect semantics, and parameter choices, so an agent has to infer nontrivial details from the schema and tool name.

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 spreadsheetId, range format, or mergeType semantics. The schema provides parameter names and an enum, but the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter-level guidance.

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 is concise but specific: it names the action ('merge') and the resource ('cells in a Google Sheet'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tool sheets_unmerge_cells, so an agent can identify the intended operation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use the tool or how to choose among MERGE_ALL, MERGE_COLUMNS, and MERGE_ROWS. There is no mention of when to prefer this over merging alternatives or related operations like unmerge or checking existing merges.

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