elementor_find_replace

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

Description discloses safety mechanisms: auto-backup, JSON validation, auto-rollback on failure, and CSS flush. Annotations already mark destructiveness; the description adds context beyond them. No contradiction. Adds good value, but could mention side effects like page reload or timeout. Score 4.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then detailing the flow. It is concise but the second sentence is dense, packed with multiple features. Could be improved with bullet points, but overall efficient for the amount of information provided.

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?

An output schema exists but is not described. Parameter coverage is low. The description covers the two-call flow well but leaves gaps in parameter details and output interpretation. Adequate for a moderate-complexity tool, but not fully complete.

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 13% (low), and the description does not explain individual parameters such as site_id, page_id, find, replace, widget_type, case_sensitive, backup_to_file, or confirmation. Only 'confirmation_token' is implied in the flow. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap, resulting in poor parameter understanding.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Find/replace plain text in every widget on one page,' with a specific verb (find/replace) and resource (widget text on a page). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bulk_find_replace_site' (site-wide) and 'fleet_find_replace' (fleet-wide), earning a top score.

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?

Description outlines a two-call flow (dry-run then apply), explaining the confirmation token requirement. It implies when to use (after dry-run) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The context is clear, but lacks explicit exclusions, so score 4.

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