find_and_replace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a destructive operation (likely yes, but not stated), what permissions are required, whether it affects formulas or formatting, what happens if no matches are found, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and scope, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral implications, error conditions, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of modifying spreadsheet data and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete context about how this operation works.

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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, edge cases, or provide examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('find and replace text') and resource ('in a range or entire sheet'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'update_values' or 'batch_update_values', which might also modify spreadsheet content, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'update_values' and 'batch_update_values' that could potentially serve similar purposes, there's no indication of when this specific find-and-replace functionality is preferred over other update methods.

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