find_replace_text

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

Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that fonts are loaded before each edit and that the operation affects text nodes. It also explains the scope default and case sensitivity, which are beyond the structured fields. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct piece of useful information (scope, case sensitivity, font loading, return value) with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with no output schema and four parameters, the description covers the essential usage semantics, return value, and a side effect (font loading). It could mention potential error conditions or confirm the batch nature, but it is largely complete for selecting and invoking the tool 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds helpful context to parameters: it clarifies that 'root' defines the scope (defaulting to page), that 'caseSensitive' overrides the default case-insensitive matching, and that 'find'/'replace' are substring-based. This enrichment goes beyond the bare schema descriptions, meriting a 4 rather than baseline 3.

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 verb ('replace'), resource ('substring across all TEXT nodes under a scope'), and distinguishes it from sibling text-editing tools by emphasizing the bulk scope operation. The alternative of searching the whole page when no root is given further clarifies its purpose.

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?

The description provides clear usage context, including the default scope (whole page) and case-sensitivity behavior, which implies when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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