replace_text_in_docx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that replacement spans both paragraphs and tables, which is useful, but omits critical mutation traits: whether all occurrences or only the first are replaced, case sensitivity, whether the file is written to disk or the change held in memory, and whether the original file is overwritten.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is not under-long so much as under-specified, which is penalised elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a document-mutating tool with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation, one sentence is far too thin. Details such as replace-all behaviour, scope of tables versus headers/footers, and whether changes persist are all missing.

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 description coverage is 0% and all three parameters (file_path, old_text, new_text) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning for any of them – it never mentions path format, matching semantics for old_text, or how new_text is inserted – so the low-coverage burden is not met.

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 names a specific verb pair (search and replace) and resource (text within .docx paragraphs and tables), which is enough to distinguish it from the formatting/table-structure siblings. It does not, however, contrast itself against near-neighbours such as set_cell_text_docx or format_text_docx that also touch text content.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (file must exist, file must be closed, etc.), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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