merge_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a merge but does not mention side effects such as how data in merged cells is handled (e.g., only the top-left value is kept), whether the file is modified in place, or if the operation is reversible. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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 extremely concise, using a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool is relatively simple, and the description covers the basic operation and parameters. However, it lacks important context about the behavior on cell contents during a merge, which is a common nuance. Since there is an output schema (not shown), return values are covered, but the description still leaves gaps about the operational side effects and constraints, making it only minimally complete.

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 provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters: path (file or preloaded, omit if one file), sheet (name), and cell_range (A1-style with an example). This adds context beyond the bare schema titles, making the parameters clearer and reducing ambiguity.

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 a specific action: "Merge a rectangular range of cells into one." This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like unmerge_cells (the inverse operation) and set_cell_style (styling). The verb 'merge' and the resource 'cells' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage: you use it when you want to merge cells into one, with an example range provided. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or discuss alternatives like unmerge_cells for reversing the operation. There is no guidance on selecting this over other cell manipulation tools, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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