configure_datasource_blend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says what linking means conceptually. It does not disclose whether the operation mutates existing worksheet state, what happens to an existing blend, what permissions or preconditions are required, or any side effects.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise, though for a four-parameter configuration tool the brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal sizing.

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?

For a tool with four required parameters, a nested object, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is substantially incomplete. The output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but it still omits parameter meaning, preconditions, and behavioral effects that an agent needs before invoking it.

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% across four required parameters, including a nested object (link_fields), so the description needed to compensate heavily. Instead it provides no parameter-level meaning: worksheet_name, secondary_datasource, link_fields, and secondary_fields are all left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 a specific action ('Link ... sources') and resource ('independently aggregated sources in a worksheet'), and it distinguishes the operation from a join. However, it does not differentiate this tool from nearby siblings such as import_blended_field or link_worksheet_filters, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'without a join' hints at when blending is appropriate rather than joining, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. An agent receiving this tool among many worksheet/datasource configuration tools gets no routing information.

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