penpot_replace_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: case-insensitive by default, per-text-run matching (limitation), returns modified shape ids and count, and atomicity via a single call. This is thorough and honest.

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 the main action and has no redundant sentences. Every sentence adds value: purpose, matching details, case sensitivity, edge case (adjacent runs), and return value.

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 no output schema, the description explicates the return value (shape ids/names and occurrence count) and warns about edge cases. It is complete for a text replacement tool with no nested objects or complex output.

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 0%. The description explains search, replacement, and caseSensitive (with default) but does not explain fileId, pageId, or limit. While fileId and pageId are common, the omission of limit is a gap. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 does find and replace text across all text shapes on a page. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like penpot_measure_text or penpot_find_shapes.

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?

The description implies usage for bulk text replacement on a page, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context of a single update-file call is clear.

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