mergeTemplate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what the merge operation entails (e.g., returns merged content, modifies records). The simple verb 'merge' lacks behavioral details.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), front-loading the purpose. However, it is too brief to cover essential aspects like behavior or output, sacrificing informativeness for brevity.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value or outcome of the merge. It does not. The tool is simple but lacks completeness for an agent to understand what the tool produces.

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 basic descriptions ('Template ID', 'Person ID'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself sufficiently defines the parameters. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'merge' and the resources 'email template with a person's data', and adds the common term 'mail merge' for clarity. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'mergeTextMessageTemplate' by specifying email template.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like mergeTextMessageTemplate, nor any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., template and person must exist). The agent is left to infer usage context.

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