Replace an exact text string within a document by providing its ID, the old string, and the new string to update content.
Edit the document by replacing a string in the document content with a new string
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes | The ID of the document that will be edited | |
| new_str | Yes | The new text to insert in place of old string | |
| old_str | Yes | The text to replace. Must match exaclty including whitespaces. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool mutates content but does not state whether replacement applies to the first occurrence or all occurrences, whether changes are reversible, or what the result looks like.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core purpose immediately and avoids repeating structured schema details.
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 simple mutation tool with fully documented parameters, the core action is clear. However, the lack of any behavioral detail about occurrence semantics, return value, or side effects leaves the description at the minimum viable level.
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 schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, so the description does not need to add much. The description adds only a high-level mapping of old_str and new_str, which is useful but does not go beyond the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 operation: editing a document by replacing a string in its content. It is unambiguous about the verb and resource stub.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus read_doc or any other alternative. Usage is only implied by the action verb, with no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.