batch_replace_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a mutation (replacement), but it does not mention reversibility, how character styling is affected, whether all matching nodes in scope are modified, or any side effects. For a destructive batch operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the core behavior with no unnecessary words or repetition of parameter details.

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 description and schema provide enough to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it, but there is no output schema and no annotation. It lacks guidance on appropriate use cases relative to alternatives and does not disclose potential side effects, which is relevant for a batch mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (find, replace, nodeId, matchCase) having a basic description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('find and replace') and resource ('text across multiple text nodes'), making the operation unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like type_replace_font (replacing fonts) or batch_replace_color (replacing colors).

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 phrase 'across multiple text nodes' implies a batch context, but the description does not explicitly contrast with closely related siblings such as set_text_content or type_replace_font. There is no when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, so usage context is only inferred.

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