replace_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation without mentioning destructiveness, undo capability, scope limitations, or effect on formatting. It also fails to specify whether it replaces all occurrences or just the first, or how it handles no-match cases.

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?

Single concise sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and scope, which is appropriately minimal for a straightforward tool.

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?

The description is too minimal for a document-modifying tool. It doesn't mention return value, error cases, or behavioral details like case sensitivity default (though schema has it), scope handling, or impact on existing text. The schema provides parameter info but not the operational context an agent needs to anticipate side effects.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter context, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the action (replaces) and target (text in active document). It is specific enough to distinguish from insert_text (which inserts new text) and get_text (which reads). However, it doesn't explicitly name siblings or differentiate further beyond the basic verb-resource pair.

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 on when to use this vs alternatives like insert_text or set_frame_text. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it over other text-editing tools, nor any conditions or prerequisites.

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