find_and_replace_doc

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior and a useful return signal ('Confirmation message with replacement count'), and 'throughout' implies global replacement. However, it does not mention auth requirements, irreversibility, formatting side effects, or whether find_text is literal or regex, which matters for a mutating operation.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose statement and then organized into Args and Returns sections. Every line earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 single-purpose find-and-replace tool, the description covers the operation, all parameters, and the return type, and an output schema is present. It is sufficient for basic invocation, but the missing usage guidance and lack of side-effect disclosure for a mutating operation keep it from being fully complete.

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 Args section compensates well by naming all six parameters and giving each a purpose. It clarifies user_google_email, tab_id, and match_case beyond what bare schema types provide, though smaller details such as tab_id format and match_case default behavior are left implicit.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Finds and replaces text throughout a Google Doc,' and the Args list makes the operation concrete. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with sibling mutators like modify_doc_text or batch_update_doc, so it stops short of 5.

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 given on when to choose this tool over related doc-mutation siblings. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or stated alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name and the word 'throughout' that this is the global find-and-replace option.

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