replace_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether the operation is destructive/irreversible, whether it replaces all occurrences or just the first, how caseSensitive affects matching, or whether replacements must be exact string matches vs regex. These are significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, under-specification is not true conciseness — the brevity sacrifices essential behavioral and usage information that the tool clearly needs.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain matching semantics (all vs first), whether regex is supported, default casing behavior, error conditions (file not found, non-UTF-8), or the 'allowed' file constraint. A tool this simple should still document these basics.

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 all 4 parameters. It does not explain any of them — notably 'search' (first vs all occurrences, regex support) and 'caseSensitive' (default behavior) are unexplained. The description adds zero value beyond the schema's type information.

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 'Replace text inside one allowed UTF-8 text file' which has a clear verb (Replace), resource (text file), and one constraint ('one allowed UTF-8'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like search_text or write_file, and 'allowed' is undefined — it doesn't clarify which files are permitted.

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 on when to use replace_text versus write_file or search_text. It doesn't state whether a full rewrite via write_file is preferable, or whether search_text should be used for locating text first. The word 'allowed' hints at a permission system but provides no context about conditions.

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