tods_merge_supplements

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. It discloses the return contents (summary, additions, deletions, updates, diffs) but never says whether the merge mutates the base files in place, writes to a new output location, overwrites existing data, or is idempotent - critical for a mutation-style 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?

Two tight sentences with the operation and its return payload front-loaded and no filler. The only mild weakness is the vague term 'diffs' left undefined.

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, the description does list what is returned, which is helpful, and the 100%-covered params need no further explanation. However, for a merge/write tool with zero annotations, the missing disclosure about file mutation and side effects leaves it only partially 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 100%, so feed_path, table_name (with format examples), and sample_limit (with default) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (applies the official TODS v2.1.0 supplement merge algorithm) and resource (_supplement.txt files onto base GTFS files), which is clearly distinct from the read-only siblings like tods_inspect_feed and tods_validate_feed. It does not explicitly name or route against a sibling, but the merge operation is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the feed must contain _supplement.txt files), and no named alternatives among the sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is the write/merge step versus the inspect/validate steps.

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