Unmerge Table Cells (raw)

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

Beyond the openWorldHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses important side effects: an edit that relocates the table changes its location-derived id, the response returns the current tableId plus previousTableId when changed, and the tool triggers a recompile because the studio does not auto-compile. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs to sequence subsequent calls correctly.

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 well-structured and front-loads the core action before explaining coordinate semantics, id volatility, and compile behavior. A few phrases such as 'raw source' are repeated, but every sentence carries necessary operational information; nothing is fluff.

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the key response fields (current tableId, previousTableId) and the recompile side effect. Coupled with full parameter schema coverage, the description gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool and handle the consequences of the edit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds meaningful semantic context on top: positions are 0-based, row 0 is the header row, column 0 carries leading labels, and tableId is volatile and should be taken from the latest response. This is genuine added value beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 names a specific operation ('Unmerge the merged cell that covers ('row','column')'), a specific resource ('in a table's raw source'), and the result ('splitting it back into individual cells'). It also differentiates the raw-source mode from the sibling openl_merge_table_cells and from general table update tools, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening schemas.

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 gives useful context by emphasizing that it operates on the RAW source and 'works for any table type,' which implies broad applicability. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as openl_update_table_cell or openl_merge_table_cells, nor does it state any exclusions.

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