unmerge_cells

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

While annotations include destructiveHint: true, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose what happens to cell values after unmerging, whether the entire range must be merged, or how dry_run affects the operation, providing minimal value 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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. For a tool with 6 parameters and a destructive side effect, one short sentence is insufficient, making this a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 tool is a mutation with no output schema, destructiveHint, and a 0% parameter description coverage. The description provides none of the necessary context about return values, effects, or prerequisites, making it wholly inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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, the description must compensate for parameter meanings, but it only mentions 'a range of cells', which vaguely maps to start_cell and end_cell. It does not explain filepath, sheet_name, dry_run, or include_changes, leaving most parameters underspecified.

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 uses the specific verb 'unmerge' with the resource 'a range of cells', clearly identifying the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like merge_cells and get_merged_cells by stating an opposite action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention merge_cells as the inverse operation, nor does it suggest using get_merged_cells to identify merged ranges first, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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