find_replace_text

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as 'Fonts are loaded before each edit' and the return format {ok, affected}. Annotations do not contradict; they accurately indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, matching the replacement action.

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 at two sentences, front-loading the purpose and scope. Every sentence provides essential information without waste.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description explains the return format. It covers main behavior but omits edge cases like no match found or error conditions. However, it is adequate for a simple tool with 4 parameters.

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 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds value by clarifying default behavior: 'Without rootId the whole current page is searched' and 'matching is case-insensitive unless caseSensitive is true', which goes beyond the schema's default value notes.

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 tool replaces a substring across all TEXT nodes under a scope. It specifies the verb 'replace', the resource 'TEXT nodes', and the optional scope via rootId, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_text which sets entire text.

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: it is used for substring replacement, and explains the default behavior when rootId is omitted. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling set_text implies a different use case.

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