hwp_foreground_disconnect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful trait ('without changing Hancom'), but it does not explain what 'forget' does to the selection, whether it is reversible, what happens if no window is selected, or any other side effects.

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 sentence with no filler. The key action is front-loaded, and the important safety qualifier 'without changing Hancom' earns its place at the end.

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 no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable: it identifies the action and a key non-effect. However, it leaves the notion of 'selected foreground window' undefined and offers no guidance on when to disconnect, so an agent has to infer context from sibling tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing about parameters the description needs to explain. Per the rubric, zero parameters gets a baseline of 4.

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 the action ('Forget') and the resource ('the selected foreground window'), and adds a meaningful qualifier ('without changing Hancom') that distinguishes it from document-mutating operations. It is not a pure tautology, though using 'disconnect' instead of the colloquial 'forget' would have been even clearer.

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 about when to call this tool versus siblings like hwp_foreground_select_window, hwp_foreground_apply_preview, or hwp_foreground_status. The description implies a cleanup/disconnect action but never states the conditions or alternatives.

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