find_replace_formatted

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that replacement is applied across all paragraphs and that formatting only applies to the replacement run. However, it does not mention case sensitivity, behavior when find not found, or limitations (e.g., headers/footers excluded).

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 well-structured with a short intro followed by an Args list. It is concise but includes a slight redundancy (the intro sentence is repeated in the bullet points). Still efficient and front-loaded with key info.

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 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and parameter meanings well. It does not explain return values (output schema exists), so completeness is adequate. Minor gaps about scope (all paragraphs vs. specific ranges) prevent a 5.

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 fully define each parameter. It does so by providing clear semantics, allowed values, defaults (e.g., 'True to bold, False to explicitly un-bold, None to leave unchanged'), thus adding maximum value beyond the schema.

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 tool's action: find all occurrences of a string and replace with formatted text. It specifies that it operates across all paragraphs, and the verb-resource combination ('find_replace_formatted') is distinct from siblings like 'replace_text' which likely does plain replacement.

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 implies usage when formatted replacement is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'replace_text', 'set_run_bold', etc. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided.

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