replace_selection

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

The description implies a destructive mutation (replacing text) but provides no details on side effects, undo behavior, or requirements (e.g., whether the selection must exist). No annotations are present to clarify safety.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could include more structure or detail without becoming verbose.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the bare minimum. It omits behavioral context like whether it overwrites or requires an active selection, which is needed for complete understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only says 'with text', not explaining the 'text' parameter's role, constraints, or format. The parameter is required, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('replace') and the resource ('current selection(s)') and specifies what the replacement is ('with text'). It distinguishes from siblings like replace_lines or insert_snippet, but could explicitly differentiate from them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as replace_lines or insert_snippet. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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