buscar_reemplazar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that mixed-format text is skipped to preserve emphasis, that forzar overrides this, that skipped items are reported separately, and that omitting reemplazar leaves the document untouched. It doesn't say whether all occurrences are replaced, how conflicts are reported, or what the response contains.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with scope, then behavior, then the non-mutating mode. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the main risk (losing formatting) and the mode split. The remaining gap is the return value — 'se reporta aparte' hints at a report but the description never says what is returned or in what shape.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate; it explains the semantics of reemplazar and forzar well beyond the bare schema. However, the notas and tablas booleans are only alluded to as search areas, never described as toggles, and buscar/mayusculas add nothing 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?

States a specific verb pair (busca/reemplaza) and a precisely scoped resource (toda la presentación), enumerating the object types searched: cuadros, figuras, notas y celdas de tablas. An agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like editar_celdas or poner_texto.

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?

'Sin reemplazar solo cuenta y no modifica' gives explicit guidance on how to run a non-destructive dry run, and 'con reemplazar, lo cambia' defines the mutating mode. It lacks any exclusion relative to siblings (e.g., when to use editar_celdas or estilo_texto instead), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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