hwpx_convert_hwp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by stating the Windows + Hangul dependency and that it returns the result path, but it omits what happens on failure, whether an existing target is overwritten, and whether conversion is lossy or reversible.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the environment constraint and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential items: what it does, the environment prerequisite, and that it returns the result path. Only failure/mutation behavior is left unspecified.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('.hwp 파일 경로'). The description adds no syntax, format, or path-resolution guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('변환한다') and resource pair (옛 .hwp → .hwpx), which is precise and unambiguous. No sibling tool performs conversion, so explicit differentiation isn't needed, but the description also doesn't situate itself against the rest of the hwpx_* family.

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 parenthetical '(Windows + 한글 필요)' gives an environment prerequisite, which is useful context for deciding whether the tool can run at all. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when-not to use it, and no pointer to alternatives such as hwpx_build or hwpx_read for other workflows.

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