walk_and_replace_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool works on inaccessible library sublayers but does not explain the replacement behavior (e.g., order of replacements, handling of conflicts), return value, or error conditions. The 'contains' parameter is not mentioned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 complexity of walking a subtree and performing multiple replacements, and lacking an output schema, the description is somewhat light. It addresses a key use case (library sublayers) but leaves out behavior details like concurrency, performance, and return value. More context would be beneficial.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra context beyond the schema. It mentions 'exact match' but does not elaborate on the 'contains' parameter, which is only described in the 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 action ('walk entire node subtree and replace text by exact match') and the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scan_text_nodes' (scan only) and 'set_text_content' (single node) by specifying a unique use case: 'Works on library instance sublayers that getNodeByIdAsync cannot access.'

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 usage when getNodeByIdAsync fails but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'walk_and_scan_text' or 'set_text_content'. No direct guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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