replace_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the item id changes, that the old id ceases to exist, that position/geometry/parent/content_type are preserved unless overridden, and that confirm=true is required. It does not state whether the operation is reversible, what permission level is needed, or how partial failures behave.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its implementation, then consequences, then the confirm gate. No padding or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the mutation semantics an agent most needs are present. The gap is parameter-level coverage for board_id/item_id/content and any note on irreversibility.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers confirm (required true) and content_type (the 'unless overridden' clause), but says nothing about board_id, item_id, or the content payload, leaving three of five parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 specific verb and resource ('Replace a doc's content') and immediately explains the underlying mechanism (read + delete + create) and why. That mechanism note also distinguishes it from the create_doc / update_document siblings an agent might otherwise pick.

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 makes clear this is the way to change an existing doc's content when there's no update endpoint, and states the confirm=true prerequisite. It stops short of naming exclusion conditions or explicitly pointing to create_doc/delete_doc as the alternatives.

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