docs_replace_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds that the operation touches every occurrence and returns a JSON count of changes. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the return format is given in a compact second sentence.

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, annotations, and existing schema together provide enough for a simple mutation tool: what it does, that it is destructive, and what it returns. It could add explicit usage alternatives, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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?

The reported schema-description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to carry parameter semantics. It only loosely implies find_text and replace_text; it does not explain document_id, match_case, or the default case-sensitive behavior.

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 states a specific action ('Replace'), a precise scope ('all occurrences ... throughout a Google Doc'), and the resource. This clearly distinguishes the tool from reading, appending, creating, or deleting docs.

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?

It conveys the intended use case: global find-and-replace within a Google Doc rather than read/append/create operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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