merge_documents

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

With no annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: appending content, handling tables, and remapping ParaIds to avoid collisions. It doesn't cover all side effects (e.g., file size limits, source file modification) but provides sufficient transparency for a merge operation.

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 concise with two sentences and a docstring line for args, no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently conveys necessary details.

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 adequately covers the tool's functionality for a single-parameter tool. While it does not describe the output schema, that is provided separately. It explains what merging entails, making it complete for the context.

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?

The only parameter, source_path, is described as 'Absolute path to the DOCX file to merge in.' Given 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by clearly defining the parameter's purpose and format.

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 it merges another DOCX document's content into the current document, with specific actions like appending body paragraphs and tables and remapping ParaIds. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle individual elements.

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 for merging entire documents but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like insert_text or add_table. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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