Replace text in document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation replaces all occurrences, which is a key behavior, but lacks details like case sensitivity defaults (though matchCase parameter hints at it), effect on formatting, and whether replacement is reversible. It does not contradict annotations since none exist.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action and a common use case. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, though it could add a bit more context without bloating.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain the effect of matchCase, the need for an account, or what happens if find text is not present. An agent could call it correctly for simple cases but might be unsure about edge cases.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, only implying template filling via the parenthetical. That matches the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'replace' and the resource 'text in a document', and the parenthetical '(template filling)' hints at a common use case. It is distinguishable from siblings like google_docs_insert_text and google_slides_replace_text, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like google_docs_batch_update or insert_text. No exclusions or conditions are given, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between tools.

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