fs_file_replace

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'replace text content'. It does not specify whether it's a plain string or regex replacement, whether it replaces all occurrences or just the first, whether it modifies the file in place, or any side effects.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and noun, but it is too brief and lacks crucial details for an AI agent.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It omits the match count format, replacement scope (first vs all), encoding handling, and other behavioral details needed for proper use.

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 by explaining parameters. However, it only mentions the return value and does not describe any of the four parameters (file_path, search_term, replacement, line_separator).

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 ('Replace text content inside file') and the return value ('return match count'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fs_read_full_text or fs_search_in_file_by_content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fs_write_text for full rewrites, or fs_search_in_file_by_content for searching). No prerequisites or when-not-to-use context is given.

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