sed_object_store

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: the original object is not modified, the result is stored as a new object, and it returns the new object ID and a preview. It could mention error conditions or performance, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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-organized: a brief opening sentence followed by a parameter list. It front-loads the purpose. However, the parameter list is somewhat verbose with repeated line breaks, which could be tightened without losing clarity.

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 complexity (6 parameters, regex substitution) and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its parameters, return value (new ID and preview), and safety (non-destructive). No critical information is missing, and it aligns with sibling context.

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%, so the description compensates by explaining all six parameters: `object_id`, `pattern`, `replacement`, `path`, `count`, `case_sensitive`. It adds meaning like "Supports backreferences" for `replacement` and "Navigate to a nested string attribute" for `path`, exceeding the schema's minimal definitions.

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 "Find and replace text in a string stored in the object store using regex," specifying the verb (find and replace), resource (string in object store), and method (regex). It distinguishes from siblings like `grep_object_store` (search) and `get_from_object_store` (retrieve).

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 explains the tool's operation (like `sed s/pattern/replacement/`) and that it creates a new object without modifying the original. While it implies usage for regex substitution, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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