Find and Replace Text

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the semantics of the 'searched_types' response (distinguishing 'no matches' from 'never searched'), clarifying that block definitions are processed to prevent reintroduction, and detailing why dimension text is excluded (to avoid breaking the association with the measurement). This is rich behavioral context that the annotations and schema do not provide.

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 concise in overall length, but the second paragraph is technically dense and may require careful reading to parse the three distinct points. Each sentence does contribute value, so it earns a 4 rather than lower.

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 fully covers the tool's behavior, including scope, exclusions, and key edge cases like block definitions and response interpretation. Since an output schema exists, return values do not need to be explained in detail. The comprehensive schema and rich description make the tool well-specified.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptive text, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; it instead adds context about the response field, which is not a parameter.

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 first sentence 'Replace text in TEXT, MTEXT and block attributes (ATTRIB and ATTDEF)' clearly states a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this from sibling tools like entity_edit_text that edit individual text entities. The scope is explicit and comprehensive.

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 clearly states what is included (TEXT, MTEXT, block attributes, block definitions) and what is excluded (DIMENSION text), providing a clear when-not scenario. However, it does not name an alternative tool for dimension text editing, so it stops short of fully explicit alternative guidance.

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