replace_all_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that all replacements run in a single batch (one API call), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting formatting), permissions needed, or error behavior when placeholders are missing. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 short and front-loaded with a clear summary. The workflow context and parameter list are concise. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Ideal structure for quick agent parsing.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, output schema present), the description covers the primary use case, batch behavior, and optional filtering. It does not address error conditions or permissions, but the essential information for correct invocation is present. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the format and defaults for mappings, page_ids, and match_case. The presentation_id description is trivial but acceptable. Overall, it adds meaningful context beyond parameter names, though examples or constraints would improve clarity.

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 specifies the action ('Replace all occurrences of each placeholder string'), identifies the resource ('placeholder text' in presentations), and distinguishes from siblings by positioning it as the 'primary content-fill tool for the template workflow.' This is specific and conveys a distinct use case.

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 a clear use case (template workflow, mapping placeholder text to real content) and mentions batch operation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives like insert_text or set_element_text. The context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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