hwp_table_merge_cells

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the range specification and fallback to selection, and offers a safety tip. However, it does not mention side effects on cell content, return values, or permissions, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and immediately provide operational details. Every sentence is necessary and no word is wasted.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and usage scenarios adequately for a merge tool. However, given no output schema and moderate complexity, it lacks details on return values, cell content handling, and prerequisites, which would make it more complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, providing base meaning. The description adds value by explaining the optionality of the range parameters and the behavior when they are omitted (current selection is used), which is not captured in 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 clearly states the tool merges table cells, specifying that it can merge a range defined by start/end row/col or the current selection. This distinguishes it from other table manipulation tools like split cells or row deletion.

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 guidance on when to specify a range versus using current selection, and notes a safe merge order. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like hwp_merge_current_selection or hwp_table_split_cell to help the agent decide when to use this tool.

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