Replace text in document

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation replaces 'all occurrences' and notes template filling, which implies a write operation. However, it does not mention that the change is permanent or require specific permissions, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed 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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and a key use case.

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?

The tool has five parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the core action and template use case, but for a tool that modifies documents, it would benefit from additional context about irreversibility or permissions. It is adequate but not rich enough for full completeness.

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?

The schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'template filling' context, which helps interpret the find/replace parameters, but does not add specific details beyond the schema, such as the meaning of matchCase or the account parameter.

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 action ('replace all occurrences') and resource ('if a string in a document'), and highlights the template filling use case, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_docs_insert_text and google_slides_replace_text. The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for template filling, providing some context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like google_docs_batch_update or google_docs_insert_text, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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