Unmerge Cells

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

Annotations carry only the title, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention that unmerging is a mutating operation with potential data consequences, what happens if the address is not currently merged, or any required permissions. The only behavioral extra is the note that it returns JSON confirmation.

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 short and front-loaded, with a one-sentence purpose followed by compact Args and Returns sections. Every line adds semantics and no filler is present.

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?

With no output schema and no behavioral annotations, the description should cover return details and side effects. It only says 'JSON confirmation,' which is vague, and omits edge cases like non-merged ranges and the effect on cell contents after unmerging. Safe invocation for a mutating spreadsheet operation is not fully supported.

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% and the schema contains only types/defaults, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: workbook name/path with active default, sheet with active default, and range_address as an A1-style merged-area address with an example.

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 'Undo a cell merge' with a specific verb and resource, and names the scope via workbook, sheet, and range_address. This clearly sets it apart from the inverse sibling merge_cells and the read-only get_merge_info.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Undo a cell merge' but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as get_merge_info to inspect merges first. There is no misleading guidance, but it relies on inference.

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