Edit a Rootr document by anchor replace

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. Description adds that the tool fails with a clear error if snippet is missing or ambiguous (not unique), and hints at replaceAll behavior. Behavior is well-disclosed.

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 concise sentences: first describes the operation, second explains error handling and prerequisite, third provides usage guidance and alternative. No wasted words.

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?

Tool's purpose, error behavior, and usage compared to sibling are covered. No output schema, but mutation tool return values are typically obvious. Could mention idempotency or effect on document structure, but sufficient for most agents.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds context that 'find' must be exact and unique unless replaceAll is set, slightly enhancing semantics beyond 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?

Clearly states it replaces an exact snippet of text with new text in a Rootr document. Distinguishes itself from rootr_append, which is for adding new content.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (precise targeted edits) and when to use rootr_append (adding new content). Also advises reading the document first to copy exact text, providing a prerequisite.

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