Find and replace text

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: non-regex literal matching, global occurrence replacement, match_case defaulting to true, and the occurrencesChanged return semantics where 0 means not found. It also explains why this is safer than index-based replacement. No statement contradicts the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence conveys the core operation and scope, and the remaining sentences add matching defaults, return semantics, and routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description explains the meaningful return value and the not-found convention. It also covers tab scoping, case sensitivity, regex behavior, and how this tool relates to replace_range. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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. The description restates some schema concepts like 'literal string (no regex)' and 'match_case defaults to true', but it does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 verb and resource: it replaces every occurrence of a literal string across the whole document or selected tabs. It also names replace_range as a distinct alternative, so an agent can tell this tool apart from the closest sibling without opening the schema.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool vs replace_range: use replace_all_text for textual substitutions because it is not dependent on indexes, and use replace_range when position matters. It also clarifies scoping via tab_ids and the match_case default, leaving little ambiguity about invocation context.

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