format_matching_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. While it mentions the tool 'combines text search with formatting,' it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects such as whether formatting is additive or replaces existing styles, what happens if text isn't found, permissions required, or rate limits. This leaves 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 extremely concise with just two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds useful context about it being a convenience tool. There's no wasted verbiage, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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's complexity (12 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't address behavioral nuances, parameter interactions, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies documents, more contextual information is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 only 25%, meaning most parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond the high-level mention of 'character formatting.' It fails to explain the semantics of parameters like 'match_instance' or formatting options, leaving 10 out of 12 parameters inadequately documented.

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 tool's purpose: 'Find specific text and apply character formatting to it.' This specifies both the action (find and apply formatting) and the resource (text). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_text_style' or 'replace_all_text,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides some implied usage context by calling it 'a convenience tool that combines text search with formatting,' suggesting it's for efficiency. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_text_style' or 'replace_all_text,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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