km_search_replace_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a modification operation but does not disclose details like whether the replacement is in-place, case sensitivity, regex support, or potential side effects (e.g., does it replace all occurrences or only first?). The description is too brief to ensure safe invocation.

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 consists of two sentences: the first clearly states the action and target, the second provides a typical use case. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 modifies state (search and replace within a macro action) and has no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., exact matching, confirmation, rollback) and does not mention any constraints (e.g., macro must exist, action index valid). More context is needed for reliable invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add further meaning to the parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions. Hence, 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 verb ('Search and replace'), the resource ('text within a specific action in a macro'), and a use case ('fixing typos or updating values'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like km_add_action or km_delete_action by specifying a modification operation on existing content.

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 a use case ('fixing typos or updating values'), which implies when to use, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use. No guidance on prerequisites or constraints is given.

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