drive_docs_replace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: case-sensitive default, occurrences being a body-only estimate vs occurrences_changed being authoritative, zero still sending a real request, dry_run default false, lease/allow-rule requirements, refused-lease-stale recovery, and the critical warning that cancellation/timeout is not rollback. This is far beyond what annotations would normally provide.

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?

Purpose and the sibling alternative are front-loaded, and the sentences are information-dense with no filler. It is long, and the lease/stale-revision sentences are packed together without visual structure, but nearly every clause carries operational weight for a no-annotation mutation tool.

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?

With 7 params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates fully: it explains the lease lifecycle, the output contract ('complete tagged YAML; refusals/failures set is_error'), and retry/recovery semantics. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value with a concrete example invocation (document_id, search:'draft', replace:'final', dry_run:true) and reiterates the case-sensitivity and dry_run-default semantics in context. It adds some meaning beyond the schema but does not elaborate each parameter's edge behavior.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Replace literal text in a Google Doc') and immediately names the sibling it is not: drive_docs_append for appending. An agent can distinguish it from other drive_docs_* tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes between this tool and drive_docs_append, states 'Dry-run first: previews need no lease', and details when a lease is required (real writes unless require_lease:false). It gives the acquire/release workflow via named siblings (drive_lease_acquire, drive lease release), covering when-to-use and prerequisites.

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