origin_merge_worksheets

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the left worksheet is overwritten by default unless output_book/output_sheet are provided, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, or side effects beyond overwriting.

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 two short paragraphs with clear structure: purpose first, then left/right, keys, how, and output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action.

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 a database-style merge with 10 parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: source worksheets, key options, join types, and output behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all major parameters: left worksheet (book_name/sheet_name), right worksheet (right_book/right_sheet), key specification (on, left_on, right_on), join type (how), and output location (output_book/output_sheet). It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it performs a database-style merge of two worksheets on key columns, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like origin_concat_worksheets by specifying the join operation.

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 explains how to specify keys (on or left_on/right_on), the default behavior when omitted, and the how parameter options. It provides clear context for use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the implicit contrast with concat.

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