search_and_replace

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

With no annotations, the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It only restates the high-level operation without explaining how the replacement works, whether it requires certain inputs, what happens to the original elements, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the role of 'search_prompt', output handling, or expected behavior, making it difficult for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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') and the target ('objects or elements in an image'), making the tool's basic purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_and_recolor', but the verb 'replace' vs 'recolor' separates them conceptually.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_and_recolor' or 'generate_image'. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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