find_replace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions that untouched blocks and uploaded files are preserved, which adds behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like mutation impact, reversal possibility, or rate limits.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating function, noting preservation, and providing comparative advantage. No unnecessary words.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use, and a key behavioral effect. It lacks details on return values or error states, but is largely adequate for a moderately complex 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema; it merely implies usage context.

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 tool does 'Find and replace text on a page', using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'replace_content' by highlighting efficiency for targeted changes.

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 explicit usage context by naming an alternative (replace_content) and giving concrete examples like fixing typos, updating URLs, or renaming terms. However, it does not include explicit 'when not to use' criteria.

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