find_and_replace_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the dry_run behavior and return value, but does not disclose potential side effects like formatting changes or auth requirements beyond the email parameter.

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 sentence followed by a structured Args/Returns section. It is clear and efficient, though the Args section could be slightly more concise.

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?

With 6 parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior (find and replace) and the dry_run feature. It lacks details on prerequisites or regex support, but is sufficient for basic use.

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 0% of parameter descriptions, but the Args section provides brief explanations for all 6 parameters (e.g., 'Text to search for'). This adds meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 action 'finds and replaces text' and the resource 'Google Doc'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'modify_doc_text' through the explicit find-and-replace mechanism.

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 includes a dry_run parameter that defaults to True, indicating the tool can be used safely for previewing changes. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'modify_doc_text' or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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