avito_replace_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two edge cases – replace="" deletes the fragment and drop_empty_line=true removes the emptied line – but omits what happens when 'find' matches nothing (error vs no-op) and whether the target must be focused/active.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core replacement behavior is front-loaded, followed immediately by the edge-case semantics.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation and parameter edge cases but leaves out failure behavior (no match found) and interaction prerequisites (focus/click), which an agent would need to invoke it reliably.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively covers all four parameters: ref is tied to a snapshot, find is the exact fragment, replace documents the empty-string deletion case, and drop_empty_line documents its effect. Only finer details like occurrence matching are left unstated.

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+resource: it replaces one exact text fragment in a field or description editor, explicitly noting it does not touch the rest of the text. This implicitly distinguishes it from the typing-oriented sibling avito_type, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

Usage is implied by the semantics ('one exact fragment... without touching the rest'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion versus the closest sibling avito_type, nor any stated precondition such as the field needing focus.

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