Find and replace

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the critical detail that the edit cannot be undone by undo_last, plus the suggested read-before-write workflow. That is genuine value beyond the structured hints; it does not, however, describe the blast radius (e.g. how many cells get rewritten) or the response.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scope statement front-loaded and the risk warning immediately after. Nothing redundant with the title or annotations.

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 destructive, 9-parameter mutation with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the most important context (irreversibility) but omits the semantics of the replacement modifiers. An agent could still make a wrong-scoped replacement (regex on/off, formulas included) without further guidance.

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 only 33% across 9 parameters, and the description adds nothing about them. Behavioral modifiers that materially change the operation -- use_regex, include_formulas, match_case, match_entire_cell -- are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess what will actually be replaced.

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+resource ('find and replace text') and its scope ('across a tab or the whole spreadsheet'), which maps cleanly to the sheet parameter's default of all tabs. No sibling performs find/replace, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, but the action is 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?

Gives a concrete precaution ('Not undoable - consider read_range first') and names read_range as the alternative to consult before mutating. It stops short of stating when this is the right tool versus write_range/fill_range for bulk edits, but the cautionary routing is clear.

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