merge_table_cells

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions 'delegate' and creating a new file, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the original file is modified), error conditions, or required permissions.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical '(delegate)' adds key context without extra verbiage.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description omits critical context: whether the merge overwrites if 'out_path' exists, whether the original file is unchanged, and what 'delegate' entails. For a tool with 4 required params and a potentially destructive operation, this is insufficient.

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 gives an example for 'cell_range' (A1:B2) and mentions 'path' and 'out_path' implicitly, but does not explain 'table_index' or the meaning of 'delegate'. The schema itself provides no 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 clearly states the action ('merge a table cell range') and the output ('write a NEW file'), providing a specific verb and resource. It stands out from siblings like 'split_merged_cell' by emphasizing the file creation aspect.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'set_cell_shading' or 'split_merged_cell' exist, but the description does not explain when merging is appropriate or mention any prerequisites.

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