find_and_replace

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

With no annotations, the description does carry the behavioral burden and does disclose that this is a mutating operation, that it affects all occurrences, and that it returns a count. It also explains regex semantics. However, it omits side-effect context such as whether changes are persisted automatically, whether the document must be open, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 compact and front-loaded: two sentences cover the core action, the return value, and the optional regex behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary 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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description states the core behavior and return value but leaves out important context: whether the document needs to be open, whether changes are saved immediately, and what happens when no matches are found. These are operational gaps an agent must resolve to invoke the tool safely.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully explains regex=true, clarifies that search and replace are literal values, and implies the operation is document-scoped through doc_id. It doesn't delve into edge cases like case sensitivity, but the core paramter meanings are conveyed beyond the bare schema titles and types.

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 states a specific operation ('Replace all occurrences of search with replace') with a clear resource (the document identified by doc_id) and notes the return value. The verb-action-object structure makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishable from sibling text tools like get_text or insert_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as insert_text or get_text, and no prerequisites are mentioned. The only usage hint is the regex flag, which is about parameter behavior rather than tool selection.

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