replace_paragraph_text

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 index-shift hazards, expect-based refusal, returned replaced_text, backup/rotation behavior, atomic validated saves, live-edit semantics, paragraph-mark preservation, and rejection of paragraphs with tracked revisions.

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 but every sentence and clause adds operational value. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by warnings, alternative routing, backup behavior, and live-mode constraints, with no filler.

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 description covers the essential hazards, safety measures, alternative tool routing, file/live mode behaviors, backup semantics, and tracked-change limitations. Since an output schema exists, enumerating return values is unnecessary; it even mentions the key returned field, replaced_text.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description gives operational meaning to index, expect, backup, new_text, and the file/live distinction. The main gap is that it never specifies the indexing base for the index parameter or the accepted values/meaning of the live parameter beyond general live-editing context.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Replace one paragraph's full text', and adds preservation constraints ('keeping style and base formatting'). It also distinguishes itself from search_and_replace by naming the exact alternative, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly states when to use search_and_replace instead ('text-anchored replacement immune to index shifts') and frames this tool as the fallback when search_and_replace's length limit is exceeded. The expect parameter is also recommended as a safety mechanism against index-shift mistakes.

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