Find and Replace Doc

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint true and idempotentHint false. The description adds context that this is 'the safest way to update specific text' and explains why (no index errors). It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral insight beyond the structured fields.

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 short, well-structured with a clear lead sentence and bullet points for use cases. Every sentence adds value, and the content is front-loaded with the core 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 has 6 parameters (4 required), full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and safety considerations. It explains when to use alternatives and does not need to elaborate on return values since an output schema exists. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already describes all parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the use case for replace_text and find_text (e.g., placeholder replacement) and reinforces that no indices are needed, which informs the agent about parameter usage without repeating schema details.

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 finds and replaces text in a Google Doc and emphasizes 'No index calculation required.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like batch_update_doc and modify_doc_text by highlighting the advantage of not needing indices.

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 lists when to use the tool with three bullet-point examples (e.g., replacing placeholders) and provides guidance on when to use alternatives: 'For building documents from scratch, consider inserting text with unique placeholders via batch_update_doc, then using this tool to replace them.'

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