hwp_foreground_apply_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the tool never saves or closes a document, has no read-back, and no automatic Undo. It could add more about the selected-window prerequisite, but the core side effects are clearly surfaced.

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 short sentences with no filler: the main action comes first, and the important caveats follow immediately. Every sentence 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 a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral safety points and when to invoke it. The main gap is the origin and meaning of plan_id, but the overall guidance is sufficient for a simple tool.

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 description does not explain plan_id at all, and the input schema only provides 'Plan Id' as a title with 0% schema description coverage. Since coverage is low, the description needed to compensate but did not, leaving an agent to infer that plan_id identifies the plan to apply.

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 action: activate the selected Hancom window and type exactly one fresh foreground preview. It names a specific verb and resource, and the 'foreground' qualifier helps separate it from generic apply-preview siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 gives clear usage timing: use only after the user has approved the preview, and it warns that there is no automatic Undo. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as hwp_apply_preview, but the condition and restriction are explicit enough to guide an agent.

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