find_replace_in_page

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and caveats. It only mentions preserving HTML structure, but doesn't explain whether the replacement is global, case-sensitive, regex, or whether it creates a new version (despite the version_message parameter). It also doesn't state if the operation is reversible or has any failure modes.

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 efficient: a one-sentence overview followed by an argument list. Every line provides essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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 a mutation with no annotations, and the description omits critical context such as return behavior, error cases, and whether the operation is scoped to the whole page or just visible text. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the lack of operational details and usage context.

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?

Although the description lists each parameter with a one-line explanation, these add little beyond the schema's property names and titles. For example, 'Text to search for' is essentially restating 'find_text'. It doesn't clarify whether find_text is plain text or regex, what 'preserving HTML structure' means for replacement, or the effect of version_message.

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 a specific action ('Find and replace text within a page') and an important constraint ('preserving all HTML structure'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_page or append_to_section.

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 such as update_page or update_section. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. An agent would have to infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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