hwp_preview_edits

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the preview is non-mutating and has a 60-second lifetime, and it describes the required user-approval ordering before hwp_apply_preview. It does not discuss stale-revision failures or expiry handling, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences: one states what the tool does, and two state the required workflow. There is no filler, and the core constraint (non-mutating, 60-second) is 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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema and related siblings, the description covers the full intended sequence and constraints. It could add a note about preview expiry or stale revisions, but as-is it gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps edits to text or table insertions and maps expected_revision to the revision obtained from hwp_read_context. The nested schema definitions fill in remaining structure, so both required parameters gain useful meaning.

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 begins with a specific verb (create), object (preview), scope (text or table insertions), and key constraint (non-mutating, 60-second). It clearly positions this as the preview step in a read-preview-apply workflow, distinguishing it from hwp_apply_preview and hwp_read_context.

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 explicit workflow guidance: call hwp_read_context first and pass its revision, show the preview, obtain user approval, and then call hwp_apply_preview. This is clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not spell out exclusions against siblings like hwp_preview_profile_insert.

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