Find and Replace

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds the return format (JSON of sheets with replacements) and clarifies scoping behavior. It does not mention that cell contents are overwritten, but the destructive annotation covers that. The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing return information.

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 well-structured with a purpose line, a bullet-style Args section, and a Returns line. Each sentence earns its place, and the most important info (purpose) is front-loaded. No unnecessary filler.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary operational details: defaults, required parameter (find_text is 'required' per text, though schema shows default '', but the description clarifies), and return value. Together with the destructiveHint annotation, an agent has enough to call it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It provides a one-line explanation for each of the six parameters, clarifying types and semantics (e.g., 'match_case: Case-sensitive match', 'whole_cell: Match the entire cell contents'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Find and replace text in an open workbook.' It also provides a concise summary that distinguishes it from sibling operations (none of which perform find/replace). The purpose is immediately obvious.

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?

It provides clear context on how the tool behaves by default ('None = active workbook', 'None = every sheet'), which helps an agent decide scope. There are no direct alternatives among siblings, so explicit exclusions are unnecessary; the defaults and parameter explanations imply usage.

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