find_and_replace_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the operation and return value but fails to disclose that this is a mutating operation with likely irreversible changes, or any authorization requirements beyond an email address. The phrase 'throughout' implies all occurrences, but no warnings or side effects are noted.

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 with a one-line summary followed by a clean Args list and Returns line. Every word serves a purpose, and it is directly readable without extraneous information.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters), no annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers core functionality and parameter semantics but lacks contextual completeness. It omits usage guidance, behavioral warnings, and any discussion of document access or editability prerequisites, making it minimally adequate.

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?

The description provides concise explanations for all five parameters, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. Each parameter (user_google_email, document_id, find_text, replace_text, match_case) is meaningfully described, though descriptions are brief and could include more detail on formats or constraints.

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 'Finds and replaces text throughout a Google Doc' with a specific verb (finds and replaces), resource (Google Doc), and scope (throughout). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like modify_doc_text by emphasizing a global find-and-replace operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as modify_doc_text or batch_update_doc. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without explicit context or exclusions.

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