hwp_start_new_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key side effect (launching Hancom), the ownership of the created document (HWP Live), and the non-destructive guarantee that it will not attach to or modify an existing user document. It does not mention every UI/focus side effect, but for a zero-parameter launcher this is solid transparency.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core action in the first sentence. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's boundary relative to existing documents. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

This is a low-complexity, parameterless tool with an output schema present. The description covers what the tool does, the important non-destructive boundary, and is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke it. No additional context is needed.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing ambiguous for an agent to resolve.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Launch Hancom and create a brand-new unsaved document owned by HWP Live.' The added boundary, 'never attaches to or changes an already-open user document,' makes its purpose clear and distinguishes it from the foreground/preview editing siblings.

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 clearly signals when to use the tool: when a fresh, unsaved HWP Live document is needed. It also states what it will not do ('never attaches to or changes an already-open user document'), though it does not name explicit alternatives such as hwp_apply_preview or hwp_foreground_apply_preview.

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