replace_text

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which aligns with replacement. The description adds that formatting is preserved 'where supported', which is useful but incomplete. It does not clarify what happens when formatting cannot be preserved or other behavioral traits like finality or authentication needs.

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 two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: the first describes the action and constraint, the second lists supported formats. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core function.

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 (7 parameters, destructive behavior, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the instruction parameter, return behavior, or edge cases like partial formatting preservation. The agent lacks sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 has 7 parameters with only 43% description coverage. The description does not explain critical parameters like instruction or normalize_first beyond what the schema provides. It adds limited semantic value, leaving the agent to infer meanings from parameter names.

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 ('replace text'), the resource ('paragraph by provider paragraph id'), and the context ('preserving formatting where supported'). It also lists supported file formats (DOCX, ODT, Google Docs), distinguishing it from siblings like add_comment or insert_paragraph.

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 for text replacement in paragraphs while preserving formatting, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool relative to alternatives like batch_edit or clear_formatting. No exclusion criteria or when-not guidance is provided.

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