preview_document_merge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does so well: it states nothing is saved, that source formatting is preserved within a documented compatibility scope, that each document starts on a new page, and that the result is bound to exact input hashes. It does not discuss auth requirements or size/rate limits, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, each carrying distinct information (behavior, input shape, return content, exclusion). No redundancy.

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 annotations, the description supplies the return-value summary (merge plan, hashes, remapping decisions, blocking diagnostics) as well as the input shape and safety profile, making it largely self-sufficient. A little more on preconditions or expected failure modes would round it out.

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 there are no nested-object hints, so the description must explain the single requestJson parameter — which it does by spelling out sources [{connectionId, documentId}] in output order and optional options {title, author}. This meaningfully compensates for the undocumented schema.

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 and resource ('Preview ordered whole-document Word assembly') and explicitly routes away from the wrong interpretation ('This is assembly, not reconciliation of edited versions'), which distinguishes it from the compare_documents sibling.

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?

'Preview ... without saving' clearly signals the dry-run context before an actual apply, and the closing sentence excludes the reconciliation use case. It stops short of naming compare_documents or apply_plan explicitly as the alternatives, so 4 rather than 5.

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