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 only says 'Merge multiple table cells' without detailing what happens to cell content, borders, or whether the operation is destructive. This is insufficient for a mutation 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?

The description is concise with a single-line summary and a structured parameter list. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the parameter list somewhat redundantly repeats the schema.

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 the tool has 5 required parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the final state of the table, error conditions (e.g., overlapping cells), or the format of the success/error message. An output schema exists but is not described.

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 lists all five parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'table_index: Table index (0-based)'). This adds basic meaning beyond the schema, but lacks details like valid ranges or relationships between indices.

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 states 'Merge multiple table cells,' which is a clear verb-resource pair. However, the sibling tool 'merge_cells' exists with a similar name, and the description does not differentiate between them, creating ambiguity about the tool's specific scope or behavior.

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 (e.g., 'merge_cells'). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the table existing or the cells being adjacent, nor any exclusions for invalid ranges.

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