docx.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 disclosure. It simply states 'Replace text in document' without indicating whether the document is modified in place, whether the operation is reversible, whether it requires saving afterward, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no filler. It is extremely concise and front-loaded with the essential action. There is no wasted words or structure.

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 function (replacing text in a docx), the description is drastically underspecified. There is no mention of how text is identified (e.g., exact match, regex), whether the operation affects all occurrences or just the first, or any interaction with the document state. With no output schema and no parameters, the description leaves most operational details unexplained, making it inadequate for an agent to use reliably.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric when there are 0 params. There is nothing to describe beyond what the schema already states, and the description adds nothing about parameters. Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to elaborate, though it is odd that a replace_text tool has no parameters, possibly indicating an incomplete definition.

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') and the target ('text in document'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find' or 'get_text' that deal with text retrieval. It is specific enough to convey the core function, though it lacks any detail about what text or replacement criteria are involved.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 28 sibling tools including find, get_text, and various modification tools, there is no mention of typical scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., document opened), or exclusions (e.g., use find for locating text first). The description is purely functional with no contextual advice.

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