Replace Block Between Anchors

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

Annotations only provide title; no destructive or readonly hints. The description adds minimal behavioral context (fallback to next header) but fails to disclose effects like whether the operation is destructive, preserves formatting, handles missing anchors, or returns any result. For a tool that modifies content, additional transparency is needed.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the main action, but does not organize information (e.g., listing parameter roles). A slightly longer description with bullet points or separate sentences would improve clarity.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers only the core behavior (replace between anchors) and one optional behavior (fallback). It does not explain return values, error behavior (e.g., anchor not found), or the roles of optional parameters like match_fn.

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 0%, and the tool has 6 parameters. The description only mentions start_anchor_text and end_anchor_text, ignoring filename, new_paragraphs, match_fn, and new_paragraph_style. It does not explain that new_paragraphs is an array of replacement strings, or what match_fn and new_paragraph_style control.

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 clearly states the tool replaces content between two anchor texts, with a fallback to the next logical header. It specifies the verb (replace) and resource (content between anchors), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like replace_paragraph_block_below_header or search_and_replace.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a use case (replacing content between anchors) but does not state prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use. Sibling context suggests many document manipulation tools, but no comparative advice.

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