merge_table_cells

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that cells are merged, but does not mention whether the operation is destructive, how cell contents are handled during merging, whether the merge is reversible, or what the output/result is.

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 compact and front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a tidy argument list. There is no filler, and every line contributes information.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify index conventions, range constraints, error conditions, or whether merged cell contents are preserved or discarded, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly in varied contexts.

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 compensate, but it mostly restates the parameter names. It adds minimal value with 'Document ID from open_document' and 'Ending row index (inclusive)', but omits critical details like whether indexes are zero-based, whether the range must be rectangular, or how table_index is resolved.

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 opening sentence 'Merge a range of table cells' uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'range' qualifier clarifies scope. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like split_table_cell, set_table_cell_text, and table_to_text.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor about prerequisites such as an existing table, cursor context, or whether the range must be rectangular and contiguous. The description only repeats the operation and parameters.

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