find_and_replace_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature of replacement, the current-page vs all-pages scope, and the dry-run preview mechanism, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not state reversibility/undo behavior, auth requirements, or what happens on zero matches.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core search/replace action, followed by scope and the dry-run recommendation. No filler.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the preview flow but leaves several flags (useRegex, matchCase, wholeWord) and no-match/return behavior unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 56% (only dryRun, allPages, wholeWord, rootNodeId, maxPreviewLength are documented). The description adds that query accepts a literal string OR regex (implying useRegex) and reinforces dryRun/allPages, but is silent on useRegex, matchCase, wholeWord, and maxPreviewLength, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a clear verb+resource pair ("Search TEXT node characters ... and replace matches") that an agent can distinguish from generic text siblings like set_text_content or bulk_rename. It scopes the target to TEXT node characters, but never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Provides a useful operational workflow hint ("Pass dryRun: true first to preview matches before committing") and clarifies the optional cross-page scope. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many text-editing siblings.

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