docs_find_replace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'find and replace' but doesn't specify whether all occurrences are replaced, case sensitivity behavior (despite the match_case parameter), or any side effects. The mutation aspect is implied but not elaborated.

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, clear sentence with no fluff. It is concise and easy to parse, but the brevity contributes to under-specification rather than being a model of efficient information delivery.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values are not needed), the description lacks contextual details about scope (e.g., all occurrences vs. first), prerequisites, permissions, or the effect on the document. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level details. It doesn't explain the meaning of document_id, find_text, replace_text, or match_case beyond what the schema properties already show. The agent has to infer semantics from parameter 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Find and replace text') and resource ('Google Doc'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like docs_insert_text and docs_append_text by indicating a replacement operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where replacement is appropriate, nor does it reference sibling tools that might be better suited for insertions or appends.

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