find_replace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses plain-string matching, table-cell coverage, case-insensitive behavior when match_case=false, verbatim insertion of replacement text, and the return shape. It does not explicitly warn that the file is modified in place or discuss reversibility, but the core mutation semantics are clear.

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 dense sentence with no filler. Every clause adds information: scope, regex exclusion, table-cell inclusion, case sensitivity, replacement semantics, and return contract. The most important operation and scope come first.

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?

The description covers the action, scope, case behavior, replacement semantics, and return values, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks only an explicit statement about whether the document is overwritten in place or how to recover, but the core usage context is complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it clarifies that match_case=false means case-insensitive, that replacement text is inserted as-is, and that the result includes matched/replaced counts and locations. This deepens understanding of the parameters' runtime behavior.

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 concrete operation: full-text find-and-replace in .docx files. It explicitly scopes the behavior as plain-string (non-regex) and includes table cells, which clearly distinguishes it from related tools like template_replace or scoped edits.

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 gives clear context: it is for whole-document plain-string replacement with an optional case-sensitivity flag. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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