word_merge_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that base document styles/media are kept and other sources contribute only text/table content, which is valuable. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior or return values, leaving some gaps.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the primary action and includes a parenthetical with important behavioral details, with no waste or redundancy.

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?

The tool is moderately complex, but the schema fully describes parameters and the description explains the merge behavior. The lack of an output schema means the return value is not specified, which is a minor gap, but overall the definition is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'other sources contribute text/table content only,' which goes beyond the schema's parameter notes. This extra semantic context justifies a 4.

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's function: 'Merge multiple .docx files into one new document.' The verb 'merge' and resource '.docx files' are specific, and the behavior of appending in order distinguishes it from other document tools like word_create_document or word_convert_to_pdf.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (combining .docx files), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The sibling list shows no other merging tool, so the usage is fairly evident, but it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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