pages_replace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that formatting is preserved (only paragraphs with the match are touched), that the document is left unchanged if the string is absent, and that the call fails rather than returning a false success. This is exemplary behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a paragraph on formatting preservation, a paragraph on failure behavior, and a concise Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the tool's operation, use case, parameter semantics, failure mode, and side effects (saving the document). An output schema is present, so return values don't need elaboration. It is complete 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does: path is '.pages file to modify', search is 'text to find' with a note about not crossing line breaks, and replacement is 'the text that takes its place'. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Replace text in an existing Pages document, and save it,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinctly identifies this as the find-and-replace tool for Pages, separating it from siblings like pages_create, pages_append, and pages_read.

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?

It clearly states this is 'the tool for filling in a template — a contract, a letter — by replacing placeholders,' giving a strong use case. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the template context provides clear guidance for selection.

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