Combine Containers

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing that this is likely a destructive operation, which container survives, and what happens to the merged container. The tool description only says 'Merge one container into another' and omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and settings behavior; the schema parameter descriptions partially compensate, but the description itself does not.

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 a single sentence with no filler and front-loads the core action, which makes it efficient. It is slightly under-specified for a merge operation, but that deficiency is better captured in other dimensions.

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 non-trivial, likely destructive merge operation with five parameters and zero annotations, this description is too sparse. It does not explain the merge outcome, the surviving container, how setting_source behaves, or any permission or irreversibility caveats; the output schema covers return shape but not the behavioral context needed to invoke the tool safely.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds no parameter-specific detail. The input schema already documents account_id, container_id, other_container_id, setting_source, and allow_user_permission_feature_update, including the target container surviving the merge.

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 states a specific action ('Merge') and resource ('one container into another'), and the combine_containers operation is clearly distinct from sibling tools like update_container or delete_container. However, it does not define what 'merge' implies in terms of content or survival, so it is clear but not fully elaborated.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_container, move_entities_to_folder, or publish_workspace. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-tool routing is mentioned; usage is only implied by the verb.

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