find_and_replace_code

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only notes regex support. It implies an in-place file mutation yet does not describe permissions, failure behavior when no match occurs, whether changes are reversible, or the return value.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose and regex capability with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

While the parameter schema is complete and the description identifies the tool's purpose, there is no output schema or annotation, and the description omits behavior on no-match, error handling, and whether the operation is destructive beyond normal replacement. It is minimally sufficient for selection and basic invocation but lacks edge-case context.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no semantic detail beyond confirming regex support (already present in the isRegex property), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description uses clear verb 'Find and replace' with resource 'in a file', and highlights 'regex support', distinguishing it from sibling tools like replace_lines_code which operate on line numbers. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as replace_lines_code or search_files_code. The phrase 'find and replace text patterns' implies a general text-rewriting use case, but no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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