replace_in_campaign_body

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

Annotations already declare the write/destructive/non-idempotent profile, but the description adds real value beyond them: case-sensitive literal matching, a no-op when the search text is absent ('changes nothing if the text is not found'), and that a replacement count is reported. The only gap is not saying whether it edits the HTML source or the plain-text body, which matters for a destructive edit.

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?

Three compact clauses: what it does, its no-match behavior and return signal, then sibling routing. No filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the disambiguation.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the match semantics, the no-op case, the reported count, and the alternatives. Only the scope of 'body' (HTML vs. text) is left implicit, which is a minor but non-trivial omission for a destructive edit.

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% and each parameter is documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'literal text (case-sensitive, not a regex)' partially restates the search parameter's own description; it adds no new semantics about campaign_id or the empty-replace deletion case. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Replace every occurrence of a literal text in a campaign's body ... and save the campaign') and immediately distinguishes itself from regex_replace_in_campaign_body and batch_replace_in_campaign_body. An agent can select it 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 to alternatives by condition: patterns → regex_replace_in_campaign_body, multiple replacements in one save → batch_replace_in_campaign_body. The literal/case-sensitive constraint additionally implies when not to use this tool.

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