merge_cells

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

With destructiveHint=true in annotations, the agent knows this is a destructive operation, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as what content is overwritten, whether the merge is irreversible, or how the dry_run/include_changes parameters affect execution. The description is silent on all behavioral traits beyond the annotation.

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 sentence, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified. It provides almost no substantive information, making it more of a placeholder than a concise, high-value description.

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 complexity (6 parameters, a destructive operation, and no output schema), the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to explain the merge behavior, the range semantics, or the purpose of optional parameters, making it impossible for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external information.

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%, so the description must explain the six parameters, especially required ones like start_cell and end_cell. It does not mention any parameter semantics; for instance, it does not clarify whether start_cell and end_cell define the top-left and bottom-right corners of the merge range, or what dry_run true does. This is a significant gap.

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 the action (merge) and the object (a range of cells), but it is nearly a restatement of the tool name. It provides no details that differentiate it from sibling tools such as unmerge_cells or get_merged_cells, and the specifics of how merging behaves (e.g., alignment, value handling) are absent.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the range being within the same sheet, or when dry_run might be appropriate. No exclusions or alternatives are noted.

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