find_replace_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Find and replace text' but does not explain whether replacements affect all occurrences or just the first, whether the operation is destructive, or what happens if the find text is not found. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at five words, with no wasted text. However, it lacks structure or additional context that would aid understanding. For a tool with six parameters, it is under-specified but remains brief.

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 the tool's complexity (six parameters, mutation behavior) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the scope parameter's effect. The description fails to provide sufficient context for reliable agent 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 description coverage is high (83%), so the input schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, offering no insights into parameter interactions or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (find and replace) and resource (text in the document). It is straightforward and distinguishes this tool from siblings like edit_text_frame, which modifies text frames but does not perform find-and-replace. However, it lacks specificity about scope (document-level vs. story vs. selection) which could improve clarity.

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. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. With sibling tools like edit_text_frame or apply_paragraph_style, the agent has no basis to choose this tool appropriately.

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