merge_datasets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output_sheet optionally writes merged results and describes the return type, but does not mention safety, side effects on source sheets, or permission requirements.

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 well-structured with a concise one-line summary, a clear Args block, and a Returns section. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool, with each parameter explanation earning its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers parameter semantics and return info well. However, it falls short on detailing the exact structure of the returned dict and potential side effects of writing output_sheet, which would make it fully 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?

All 8 parameters are explicitly explained in the Args section, providing meaning beyond the schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this full explanation is essential and well done, covering defaults and the distinction between join_key and left_on/right_on.

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 the tool 'joins two sheets within the workbook similar to SQL join semantics', using a specific verb and resource. It conveys the core operation effectively, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like vlookup_helper or aggregate_data.

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 SQL join semantics analogy implies a suitable use case, but the description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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