docs_replace_markdown

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

Annotations already indicate this is destructive and non-idempotent, so the description does not need to restate mutation. It adds useful context about the revision guard and scoping to a single tab, but it does not disclose behavior on a stale revision mismatch or the full extent of what is overwritten.

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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and object. It loses a point for the slightly awkward 'from Markdown' phrasing and for omitting a bit of useful structural guidance, but it is otherwise efficiently written.

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 write operation with five parameters, zero schema description coverage, and an exact-revision guard, one sentence is not enough. Missing context includes format_profile semantics, tab selection when tab_id is null, revision-mismatch behavior, and how this differs from docs_edit_text.

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 for the five parameters, and it only loosely clarifies the roles of markdown and expected_revision_id. It does not explain tab_id null behavior, format_profile choices, or how the replacement target is selected when tab_id is absent.

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 action ('Replace'), a clear object ('one document tab'), and the input format ('from Markdown'), which makes the core operation understandable. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like docs_read and docs_create, though it does not explicitly differentiate from docs_edit_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?

Usage context is only implied by the phrase 'under an exact revision guard,' suggesting a controlled overwrite. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over docs_edit_text or what conditions disqualify its use, so guidance remains implicit rather than direct.

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