Search and Replace in Collection

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (modification), destructiveHint=false (not destructive), idempotentHint=true (safe to repeat), and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this—no mention of what gets affected, permissions, or side effects. It is adequate but does not enhance transparency beyond the structured data.

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 front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point. However, it could be slightly improved by adding structure (e.g., listing key parameters or scope). Currently, it is efficient but minimal.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, many optional) and the presence of similar siblings, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, behavior when applied to multiple documents, or how it differs from other search-replace tools. The lack of output schema further increases the need for descriptive completeness, which is not met.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not explain the difference between 'searchTerm' and 'query', or how 'docId' limits the operation. No extra detail is given.

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 tool performs a search and replace within a specific collection, using the verb 'search and replace' and resource 'collection'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like transkribus_search_replace, which likely operates at a different scope (e.g., document-level), missing an opportunity for distinction.

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 (e.g., transkribus_search_fulltext, transkribus_search_replace, transkribus_search_keyword). It lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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