Preview a bulk edit

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already carries the safety profile, and the description usefully corroborates it ('nothing is written') while adding the search-field scope and result ordering. It does not say whether results are truncated/paginated, how many matches are returned, or how regex errors surface — gaps that matter for a preview tool.

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 sentences, zero filler: the search scope and ordering come first, and the read-only guarantee is front-loaded at the end where it functions as the key constraint. Nothing is repeated from the title beyond what is needed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a 'preview' actually returns — match counts, per-field diffs, affected-item list — and it says nothing about the result shape or size. For a 6-parameter, cross-field search tool this leaves a meaningful hole.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only platform and workspace are documented), so the description needs to carry weight: it does clarify that find accepts plain text or a regex and that replace is the substitution, which maps to the regex flag. But active_only is never explained (the phrase 'live items first' hints at it without defining it), and the boolean default for regex is 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 ('Find text... and preview the replacement') plus the exact search scope (subject, preheader, body, content block) and the ordering rule ('live items first'). The closing clause 'Preview only; nothing is written' sharply separates it from any apply/commit counterpart, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 'Preview only' clause implies this is a dry-run step before an actual edit, which is useful contextual guidance. However, it never names an alternative tool or states explicit when-not conditions, so routing to it versus the sibling diagnostics (check_message, find_overlaps, etc.) is left to inference.

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