unmerge_cells

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses auto-backup behavior, the nuance that backup=False only skips rotation, atomic validated saving, and refusal to work on documents open in Word. These details materially affect whether and how an agent should call the tool.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the core action, and the second packs the critical behavioral caveats. There is no filler or repetition.

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 safety and save behavior well, and an output schema exists, so return values are not a major gap. However, with 5 parameters, no annotations, and zero property descriptions, the lack of coordinate/parameter context leaves the agent with meaningful assumptions about how to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the backup parameter; file_path, table_index, row, and cell receive no guidance about coordinate basis, zero-indexing, or how they relate to the merged cell.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Split a merged cell back into single cells (horizontal and vertical).' This clearly states the tool's operation and makes the inverse relationship to the sibling merge_cells evident even without naming it.

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 intended use is implied: apply this when a merged cell needs to be split. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions beyond the Word-open refusal, and no mention of the opposite merge_cells operation or related table-level tools.

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