text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about mutation semantics, reversibility/undo, permissions, or side effects of operations like replace_all across a range. For a 7-action write-oriented tool this is a substantial gap.

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 action inventory is front-loaded and each action's signature is packed into a single dense line with no filler. It is terse rather than verbose, which is appropriate for a parameter-heavy dispatcher tool.

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 7 actions, 15 flat parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the action-to-parameter mapping but omits behavior, error modes, and return information an agent would need to invoke mutations safely. Adequate but clearly short of complete for this complexity.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does add real value by mapping which parameters belong to which action in a flat 15-property schema. However, several parameters (side_char, format, style, case, regex) get no semantic explanation beyond appearing in a signature, so the compensation is partial.

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 names the exact operations (insert, delete, replace, replace_all, copy, move, insert_code) on text and lists each action's signature, so an agent knows the tool's scope despite the vague name 'text'. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like char_format or para_format, which handle adjacent concerns.

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?

Listing per-action parameter sets implicitly guides which action to pick, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or routing to alternatives (e.g., formatting vs. editing). Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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