ipynb_search_replace_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the return value ('success' and 'replacements_made' or 'error') and notes that 'pattern' is regex, but it does not explicitly state that the notebook file is modified in place, whether changes are reversible, or potential error conditions beyond the generic 'error' key.

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: a one-sentence purpose, a straightforward Args list, and a Returns line. It front-loads the core behavior and avoids unnecessary filler, making it easy to parse.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description covers the key essentials: purpose, parameters, and return behavior. It lacks explicit mutation warnings or detailed error semantics, but it provides enough for a competent agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema provides zero descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section compensates by explaining each parameter: the filepath with 'absolute path preferred', pattern as 'regex', replacement as 'replacement string', and cell_type as 'Optional filter by cell type'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search and replace across all cells in a Jupyter Notebook (.ipynb).' The verb+resource combination is specific, and the scope 'across all cells' distinguishes it from sibling tools like ipynb_replace_cell (single cell) and ipynb_search_cells (search only).

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 description implies when to use this tool via the phrase 'across all cells' and the optional 'cell_type' filter, which signals global scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, making it a clear but not fully explicit usage guide.

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