text-write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states the overwriting nature of the action, but does not disclose whether the text data-block must already exist, whether replacement is irreversible, what happens to other text block properties, or what the result of the operation is.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately conveys the core action and target resource, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a mutating operation with no annotations, output schema, or parameter descriptions, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain preconditions, side effects, or error conditions, leaving important operational context unclear.

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%, and the description adds little beyond the schema titles. While 'name' and 'body' are reasonably clear from their titles, the description does not clarify allowed formats, behavior for missing blocks, or how body replacement differs from appending.

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 'Replace a Text data-block body' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool overwrites the body of a text data-block. This semantically distinguishes it from sibling tools like text-append, text-read, or text-save, even without naming them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as text-append or text-save. The intended use is only implied by the word 'Replace' and the parameter names, with no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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