replace_in_queries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does explain scope semantics ('inside text literals' vs 'outside strings and comments'), but it does not mention that this mutates query definitions, whether changes are reversible, how dry_run behaves, or what output the caller should expect. The word 'replace' implies mutation, but the destructive nature and safety affordances are left undisclosed.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every sentence earns its place. The example and the scope breakdown are compact and immediately useful, with no filler or repetition of schema data.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is not complete enough. It explains the main purpose and scope options but leaves required parameters, regex behavior, dry-run behavior, and return values undefined, making it difficult for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains only the 'scope' parameter in detail; the other seven parameters—especially required ones like 'source', 'find', and 'replace'—are not described. Parameter names like 'dry_run' and 'ignore_case' are partially self-explanatory, but that does not make up for the lack of formal guidance on 8 parameters.

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 states a specific operation ('Find and replace') on a specific resource ('queries'), and clarifies the scope ('all or the listed queries in one go') with a concrete example. This clearly distinguishes it from single-query tools like set_query and from find_in_queries.

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 gives a clear use case ('repoint a server or folder') and explicitly says it operates across all or selected queries at once. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer when bulk replacement is appropriate.

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