replace_all_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 that it replaces 'ALL occurrences' (implying a global operation), it doesn't address critical aspects like whether this is a destructive operation (likely yes), what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second emphasizes the scope ('ALL occurrences'). There is no wasted language, and every sentence earns its place by reinforcing key information.

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 (a mutation operation with 5 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, it leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full impact and usage constraints. It meets basic requirements but lacks depth for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters well (e.g., 'document_id', 'find_text', 'replace_text', 'match_case'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it implies global replacement but doesn't clarify parameter interactions or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and replace all instances of text in the document.' It specifies the verb ('replace'), resource ('text in the document'), and scope ('ALL occurrences'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'format_matching_text' or 'bulk_update_google_doc', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'format_matching_text' (which might style rather than replace text) or 'bulk_update_google_doc' (which might handle broader updates). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage beyond the basic operation.

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