merge_documents

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It discloses that each source is separated by a horizontal divider and that files are merged in order. However, it does not mention error handling, overwrite behavior, or any side effects, leaving gaps for a read-only operation that could be destructive.

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 sentences that front-load the action and result, followed by use cases. No superfluous words; every sentence adds value. Ideal conciseness.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output behavior, and use cases. It could be more complete by mentioning file format restrictions or performance considerations, but it is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool.

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%, with both parameters already well-documented. The description adds little new parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema (e.g., order given is repeated). Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action ('Combine multiple .docx files into a single document') and the resource/format, distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_document' (which creates a new file) and 'add_section' (which modifies an existing file).

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 provides usage context ('assembling reports, consolidating contracts, or combining chapter files'), implicitly indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., merging PDFs would require a different tool).

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