merge_cells

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lacks details about side effects (e.g., is merging destructive? what happens to cell content?), required permissions, or error conditions. The return value is vaguely described as 'Success or error message'.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, but the argument list is repetitive and unnecessarily verbose. It could be more concise by integrating the parameter descriptions into the main sentence.

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 5 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that isn't leveraged in the description, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain parameter constraints, relationships, or return value details beyond a generic message.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaningful information beyond the property names. Listing parameters with trivial descriptions like 'Starting row' adds no value over the schema itself.

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 verb 'merge' and the resource 'cells in a rectangular area', making the purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'merge_table_cells', which likely does the same thing.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'merge_table_cells' or any other table manipulation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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