smart_text_replace

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

With no annotations, the description provides clear behavioral details: formatting of unchanged portions is preserved, and only replaced text gets default formatting. This is sufficient for a simple find/replace operation, though it does not cover edge cases like sequential vs. parallel replacement.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core action and key behavior without any 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could mention limitations or ordering of replacements, but it is largely complete for its purpose.

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 100% with descriptions for nodeId and replacements. The description adds context about formatting behavior that goes beyond the schema, though it does not provide additional detail on individual parameters.

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 verb 'Replace' and the resource 'specific text in a node', and distinguishes its behavior by highlighting that formatting of unchanged portions is preserved, which sets it apart from sibling tools like set_text_content.

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 when to use the tool (partial text replacement with formatting preservation), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like update_text_preserve_formatting or set_text_content.

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