hwp_apply_preview

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden, and it does add meaningful behavioral details: the preview must be 'fresh' and exactly one is applied. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether previous previews are replaced, or what happens if no automation-owned document is visible.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and target while adding only meaningful modifiers like 'exactly one,' 'fresh,' and 'automation-owned.'

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 tool is simple, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the required plan_id parameter is entirely unexplained, and the behavioral consequences of applying the preview are vague, leaving the description incomplete for safe invocation.

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?

The schema coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the required 'plan_id' parameter. An agent has no way to know what plan_id refers to, what format it should take, or where to obtain it.

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 names a specific verb ('Apply'), a well-scoped resource ('exactly one fresh preview'), and a precise target ('the visible, automation-owned document'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling hwp_foreground_apply_preview, which targets a foreground window rather than an automation-owned document.

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 provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate: apply a single fresh preview when the document is the visible, automation-owned one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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