sheets_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 does disclose that indices are 0-based and end is exclusive, which is useful. However, it fails to disclose the data-loss behavior typical of merging cells (only top-left value retained) or any side effects, which is a significant gap.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. Every word is functional and the key range semantics are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 description is too minimal for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations. It omits critical details about merge behavior, merge_type values, return value, and prerequisites. Given the output schema exists, the description still leaves major gaps.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning by specifying that indices are 0-based and end exclusive, directly clarifying the row/column parameters. However, merge_type is left completely undefined, and no other param details are provided, so it only partially compensates.

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 'Merge cells in a sheet' which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling sheet tools like sheets_add_sheet or sheets_write. However, it lacks any extra context about the merge behavior or scope, so it is clear but not exceptionally distinctive.

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. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, so the agent receives no usage context.

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