Find and replace text

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, idempotent, or destructive, but the description adds no further behavioral detail. It does not mention return values, side effects, whether changes are persisted, or error behavior when no shapes match.

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 concise and well-structured. The main action is stated in one sentence, followed by a compact Args list that matches each parameter without unnecessary fluff.

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 covers the core operation and all parameters. An output schema exists, so omitting return details is acceptable. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting whether changes require an explicit save, especially since visio_save and visio_undo are sibling tools.

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?

All five parameters are described in the Args section with sufficient meaning: find, replace, page, document, and match_case. The descriptions clarify scope and defaults (e.g., omit page to cover every page), though they lack edge-case details.

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?

Description clearly states the action: replacing a substring in the text of every shape that contains it. This distinguishes it from related tools like visio_search_text (find only) and visio_set_shape_text (set entire text).

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. It does not mention that visio_search_text should be used for finding-only, or that visio_set_shape_text might be preferred for replacing full text, nor does it advise about save/undo workflows.

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