search_and_replace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses formatting preservation, skipped overlapping slide-number/date fields, refusal of regex capture groups in live mode, atomic saves with two-slot backup, and the UNSAVED state until live_save. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a mutating 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 dense yet efficient: the purpose appears first, and every clause carries functional or behavioral information. The packed semicolon-heavy structure makes it slightly harder to parse quickly, so it does not earn a 5.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no per-parameter schema text, the description covers the major behaviors well and an output schema exists. Still, key knobs like scope, include_notes, and match_case are not explained, leaving important gaps in the agent's ability to invoke it fully correctly.

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. It meaningfully explains regex, live, and backup behavior, but it leaves the ambiguous scope parameter unexplained and does not mention match_case or include_notes, forcing the agent to infer their semantics from names alone.

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 opens with 'Deck-wide find and replace,' which clearly names the action, resource, and scope. It also names set_table_cells as the tool for bulk cell rewrites, providing some sibling differentiation, though it does not explicitly distinguish from find_text or apply_edits.

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?

It gives explicit when-not guidance for bulk cell rewrites via 'Bulk cell rewrites: set_table_cells (tables-charts pack).' It also explains conditional behavior for locked files through live='auto'/'force'/'off'. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over the other search/edit siblings.

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