Replace a paragraph's text while preserving the paragraph and optionally its style; target a specific open document by ID when needed.
Replace the text of one paragraph, keeping the paragraph itself (and optionally its style).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | New paragraph text. | |
| index | Yes | Zero-based paragraph index. | |
| documentId | No | Target document ID from list_documents. Optional when only one document is connected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by stating that the paragraph object survives and that style can be preserved, which tells the agent this is a text overwrite rather than a structural change. It omits permission requirements, behavior on out-of-range index, and whether the prior text is recoverable.
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 core action front-loaded and the preservation guarantee packed into a parenthetical. Nothing to trim.
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 simple three-parameter setter with no output schema, the essentials are present, and the schema covers documentId's optional-when-single-document rule. Gaps remain for a mutation tool with zero annotations: no statement of failure modes (invalid index, missing document) and no clarification of the dangling 'style' option.
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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no per-parameter meaning, and its phrase 'optionally its style' hints at a style option that has no corresponding parameter in the schema, which could mildly mislead.
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?
A specific verb+resource pair ('Replace the text of one paragraph') that makes the single-paragraph scope unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes itself from document-wide siblings like replace_text and from insert_paragraph/delete_paragraph, but does not name them explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the wording ('one paragraph', 'keeping the paragraph itself'), which suggests using this instead of delete+insert. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no pointer to get_paragraph/read_paragraphs to obtain the index, and no mention of when replace_text would be the better choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.