find_replace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions the replace action, scope control, and return count, which are useful, but it does not explicitly state the destructive nature of the operation (e.g., irreversible modification) or any permission requirements. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, front-loaded with a clear summary, then a structured argument list, and a return statement. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's purpose, scope options, parameter semantics, and return format. An output schema exists, so return type is already structured. It omits edge-case behavior (e.g., no matches, errors), but for a find/replace tool this is reasonably 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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does this well: 'Limit to specific sheet (-1 for all sheets)' adds default behavior, 'Case-sensitive matching' and 'Only match if cell equals find text exactly' clarify semantics beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase 'Find and replace text across the spreadsheet or a specific sheet,' clearly identifying the tool's function and resource. It distinguishes this from siblings (e.g., read_cells, write_cells) by focusing on search-and-replace behavior.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever text needs to be replaced across an entire spreadsheet or a specific sheet. It clearly states the scope options but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which would push it to a 5.

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