replace_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs replacements but doesn't mention critical behaviors: whether it modifies files in-place, requires write permissions, handles errors, backs up original content, or has rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Replace content') and scope ('within files across multiple specified paths'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., destructive nature, error handling), output format, and usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'paths' and 'operations' parameters with their nested properties. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying batch processing across multiple files, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Replace' and the resource 'content within files across multiple specified paths', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'write_content' (which creates new content) and 'read_content' (which only reads), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is well-defined but could be more precise about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'write_content' for creating new files or 'search_files' for finding content without replacement. It mentions 'multiple specified paths' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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