docs_find_replace

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether all occurrences are replaced, if the operation is irreversible, or what the return value is. The brief statement 'Find and replace text' is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or safety.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. While it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points), it avoids unnecessary verbosity and earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits important context like whether the operation is scoped to the entire document, how case sensitivity works beyond the parameter, and what the agent should expect after 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (find, replace, matchCase, documentId), but the tool description adds no extra meaning. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already offers.

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 (find and replace) and resource (text in a Google Doc), making it easy for an agent to identify the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like docs_insert_text and docs_batch_update by focusing solely on find/replace operations.

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, such as performing a batch update or inserting text. No prerequisites (e.g., document existence) or limitations (e.g., max replacements) are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for proper invocation.

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