merge_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'merge multiple documents into the current document' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether the current document is overwritten, original documents unchanged, track changes behavior, or format compatibility).

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 of 8 words, which is too brief for a tool with one parameter and no annotations. It is underspecified and sacrifices completeness 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 the complexity of merging documents, the description is incomplete. It does not cover error cases (e.g., invalid paths), the merging process (e.g., order of documents), or interaction with the current document state. The output schema is present but not evaluable, so no credit for that.

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 the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema for the 'file_paths' parameter. It does not explain expected format (absolute/relative paths), file types, or ordering. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema parameter descriptions.

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 (merge) and the resource (multiple documents into the current document). However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like insert_document or execute_mail_merge, which could be confused.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., file paths must exist, document must be open), and no exclusions. The agent has no context to decide appropriateness.

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