string_replace

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose key behaviors: it does not mention that replacement is case-sensitive, that the original string is not modified (returns new string), or the effect of the replace_all parameter. Minimal beyond 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?

At only two words, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It does not earn its brevity, as it omits essential context. A well-structured description would front-load the purpose and key differentiators.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools (e.g., regex_replace), the description is entirely insufficient. It does not explain the output, dge cases, or limitations. The agent has no guidance on invocation beyond the schema.

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 adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the tool's existence. Parameters like replace_all are documented in schema, but the description does not clarify their semantics further.

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 'Replace text' is a verb+resource but very generic. Among siblings like regex_replace, it does not specify that this tool performs simple substring replacement (non-regex). It distinguishes itself only by exclusion of 'regex', which is not explicit.

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?

No usage guidelines provided. There is no indication when to use this tool over alternatives like regex_replace or string_join. The description offers no context for decision-making, leaving the agent to infer intent from the name alone.

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