color_replace_global

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key behavior—replacing a color globally across all pages—but does not mention side effects, irreversibility, or whether it affects all color usages beyond fill/stroke. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and scope compactly without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter global replacement tool, the description conveys the essential operation and scope. It does not describe return values or edge cases, but no output schema exists and the action is straightforward enough for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, describing them as hex color strings. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Replace'), a clear resource ('a color'), and an explicit scope ('across the entire document (all pages)'). This clearly distinguishes it from more localized color tools like set_fill or set_stroke.

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 the entire document (all pages)' conveys when this tool is appropriate: for document-wide color replacement rather than per-node or per-page changes. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the global scope provides clear enough context.

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