replace_block_between_manual_anchors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the replacement action but fails to specify critical behaviors: whether the operation is destructive (overwrites existing content), requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., missing anchors), or affects document structure. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's impact.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the core functionality without unnecessary words. However, it could be more front-loaded by explicitly naming key parameters upfront, but overall, it avoids verbosity and gets to the point quickly.

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 the complexity of a 6-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use the tool correctly in a document editing context.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description only mentions 'start_anchor_text', 'end_anchor_text', and implies 'new_paragraphs' as content, but omits 'filename', 'match_fn', and 'new_paragraph_style'. It doesn't explain parameter roles, formats, or interactions, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Replace all content') and the scope ('between start_anchor_text and end_anchor_text'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'replace_paragraph_block_below_header' or 'search_and_replace', which could handle similar content modifications, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'replace_paragraph_block_below_header' for header-based replacements or 'search_and_replace' for simpler text substitutions. It lacks context on prerequisites, like document accessibility or anchor existence, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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