Find & replace text

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

The description meaningfully supplements the annotations by explaining mutational scope: it touches shapes, table cells, and speaker notes; matching is literal, case-sensitive by default; and it returns occurrencesChanged, with 0 indicating no match and a suggestion to verify via list_slides. This goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints and compensates for the missing output schema.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and subsequent sentences each add a distinct useful trait: scope, matching semantics, return-value interpretation, and a concrete workflow.

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?

For a mutating, whole-deck operation with no output schema, the description covers scope, matching constraints, case sensitivity, scoping to specific slides, return-value semantics, and the canonical template workflow. It leaves no practical gap an agent would need to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a few clarifications like match_case=false to ignore case and using page_object_ids to scope, but these largely restate what the schema already provides. It does not add substantial new parameter meaning beyond the existing 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Finds and replaces every occurrence of a string across the whole deck' and enumerates exactly what is affected (shapes, table cells, speaker notes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling text tools like insert_text or set_text, which target individual insertions or specific text frames.

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?

It gives clear context: use it for whole-deck replacement, scope with page_object_ids for selected slides, and it explicitly calls out the classic template placeholder flow. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative text-editing siblings, but the scope and use case are clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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