merge_cells

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, indicating potential destructive effects. The description adds that the tool can also 'unmerge', which implies reversibility, but does not detail consequences like data loss or cell content handling. It neither contradicts nor significantly adds to the annotation's behavioral signal.

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: two sentences for the main action, then a clean Args/Returns listing. Every element is necessary and immediately informative. The front-loaded purpose sentence allows quick comprehension.

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 4 parameters, an output schema, and a destructive hint, the description covers the essential input details and return value concept ('Result of the merge operation'). It lacks potential caveats about data concatenation or error conditions, but for a straightforward merge tool, it is reasonably 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 carries the burden. It explains each parameter: spreadsheet_id and sheet by name, range as 'A1 notation (e.g., 'A1:C3')', and merge_type with enum values ('MERGE_ALL', 'MERGE_COLUMNS', 'MERGE_ROWS', 'UNMERGE'). These details add meaning beyond the bare schema properties, improving understanding.

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 explicitly states 'Merge (or unmerge) cells in a range', clearly identifying the verb (merge/unmerge) and resource (cells in a range). The title from annotations is 'Merge Cells', reinforcing the purpose. No sibling tools perform merging, so it is well-differentiated.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for merging vs. other cell operations like updating cells or formatting. The sibling list includes many cell-related tools, but no comparative information is given.

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