unmerge_cells

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state side effects (e.g., data in previously hidden cells restored), permissions required, or error conditions. 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 extremely concise (one sentence), but such brevity sacrifices informativeness. It is not structured to front-load key details; it simply restates the tool name.

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 6 required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the range specification and the effect on merged cells. It does not mention that unmerge reverses a previous merge, nor does it describe the result. Sibling tools like merge_cells exist but are not referenced.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema descriptions, which are clear. The parameters specify a range, but no explanation of how they relate to the unmerge operation is provided.

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 'Unmerge' and the resource 'cells in a range', which directly conveys the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling 'merge_cells' by being the inverse operation. However, it is minimally descriptive and lacks additional context.

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, clear_range). The description does not mention prerequisites, such as that cells must be already merged, or when unmerging is appropriate.

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