replace_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a mutating tool, and it omits key traits: whether all occurrences or only the first are replaced, whether replacement is case-sensitive, whether it is reversible, and whether a count of replacements is returned. The scope wording is also ambiguous about what the default None actually means (all slides vs. current slide), leaving an agent guessing at the most consequential side effect.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, followed by a compact Args block that is easy to scan. The formatting is Clean, though the 'Args:' docstring style duplicates what the schema already names.

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?

This is an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, so the description should explain result behavior and matching semantics; it does neither. An agent cannot tell whether the operation is idempotent, whether it reports how many replacements were made, or how it interacts with formatting runs in the slide text.

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 0%, so the description has to carry all parameter meaning, and it does define all three fields reasonably ('find' must be non-empty, 'replace' is the replacement, 'scope' takes None/"all"/an index). It falls short on the type-mixing and default null semantics of scope, and gives no hint about literal vs. regex matching for find.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Replace exact text in the current presentation'), which is enough to distinguish this from create/open/save siblings. It does not, however, distinguish it from near-neighbors like set_slide_text or add_text_box, which also write text into slides.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative; an agent must infer on its own whether to call replace_text or set_slide_text for an edit. The only contextual hint is the 'current presentation' scoping phrase, which implicitly rules out cross-file operation.

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