replace_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that the operation modifies the computer and that ambiguous matches are refused unless replace_all=true. This surfaces key failure modes and side effects, though it omits other error conditions (e.g., missing file, no match) and encoding behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a crucial behavioral note. No unnecessary words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the core function and a key behavioral nuance. An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but absent error handling (e.g., no-match case) leaves some gaps. Still, it's adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for replace_all by explaining its role in allowing multiple matches, and 'exact text replacement' clarifies old_text/new_text semantics. However, path and encoding parameters are not explained beyond their names.

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 uses a specific verb 'Make an exact text replacement' and identifies the resource 'in a file', clearly distinguishing it from sibling file operations like read/write. It also notes the exact-match behavior, which differentiates from potential regex-based replacements.

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 exact text replacement but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like write_text_file or search_files. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer.

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