docs_edit_text

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those flags: the operation can be previewed or applied, matching is exact, and it is revision-guarded. It does not disclose partial-application or expected_count mismatch behavior, which prevents a 5.

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 filler; every phrase adds information about behavior, exactness, or scope. 'In one tab' is slightly terse, but the overall structure is appropriately compact.

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 destructive mutation tool with an output schema and annotations, the main action is named and the revision-guard concept is present. However, the description does not clarify how expected_count is used, what 'one tab' means in relation to tab_id, or the exact contract of expected_revision_id, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 prose must carry parameter semantics, but it only gestures at apply ('preview or apply') and expected_revision_id ('revision-guarded'). It leaves expected_count, tab_id, document, and the replacement structure to inference, which is not enough compensation for an undocumented schema.

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 ('preview or apply exact, revision-guarded replacements') on a clearly identified resource (text in a document/tab). The qualifier 'exact, revision-guarded' distinguishes it from the markdown-style sibling without being a tautology.

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 wording implies this is for exact, revision-checked text replacements and supports a preview-before-apply workflow, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over docs_replace_markdown or docs_create. Exclusion conditions and alternative tools are not named in the description, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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