sheets_find_replace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates but is repeatable and non-destructive. The description only adds the scoping fact (whole sheet vs. a range) and omits operationally important behavior: whether all occurrences are replaced, whether formulas are touched by default, and whether the change can be reverted. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is a modest but real contribution.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, no restatement of the tool name, and zero wasted clauses. Everything stated earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition is only minimally sufficient. It conveys scope but says nothing about return values (e.g., count of replacements), default behavior for formula cells, or how to confirm success, which an agent would want before running a bulk mutation.

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 100%, so all eight parameters, including use_regex, match_case, match_entire_cell and search_formulas, are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion of limiting scope via range, which the schema already states; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('finds and replaces') and resource ('text across a spreadsheet or within a specific range'), so the operation is immediately unambiguous. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with nearby siblings such as sheets_find_duplicates or sheets_read_range, so it falls short of a 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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (e.g., writing back a modified range, or using sheets_find_duplicates to locate rather than mutate). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of what happens if nothing matches.

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