docs_search_replace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does meaningful work by stating that the operation preserves document history and uses a real batchUpdate instead of delete-and-rewrite. It does not cover permissions or side effects in depth, but it provides a valuable non-obvious guarantee.

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 focused sentences: the first states the tool's core function, the second adds a valuable behavioral guarantee. Every sentence earns its place and the description is well front-loaded.

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?

The schema covers all parameters and an output schema exists, so return behavior does not need describing. However, the description lacks explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of docs_batch_replace, which is an important selection-related gap given the sibling list.

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 the schema already fully documents find, replace, doc_id, regex, and occurrence. The description reinforces the 'specific occurrence' idea but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the action ('Find text... and replace') and the resource ('Google Doc'), and specifies that it targets a specific occurrence. This differentiates it from the sibling docs_batch_replace, which implies bulk replacement.

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 phrase 'specific occurrence' implies this tool is for targeted single-occurrence replacement, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over docs_batch_replace or when not to use it. Usage context is present but only implicit, not explicit.

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