build_hwpx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal construction pipeline: starting from a base skeleton, overlaying templates, overriding header/section XML, packing as a valid HWPX archive, and validating. It also advises creating 'only the required text changes,' which is useful behavioral context. It does not cover error handling or file overwrite behavior, but the core transparency is strong.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a numbered workflow, and a usage note. Every sentence earns its place, and the front-loaded purpose makes it immediately scannable. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, 1 required) and 100% schema coverage, the description is fully sufficient. It covers the prerequisites (analyze_hwpx, extract_hwpx_xml), the exact steps, and the validation behavior. Since an output schema exists, not explaining return values is acceptable. The description leaves no major gaps for an agent to select and invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by connecting parameters to the workflow: it explains that template selects a document-type overlay, header_xml/section_xml are custom overrides, and provides guidance on crafting section0.xml with minimal changes. This extra context goes beyond the schema's simple field descriptions.

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 opening line 'Build an HWPX file from a template and optional XML overrides' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. The described workflow (base skeleton, overlays, packing, validation) distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_hwpx, extract_hwpx_xml, and convert_md_to_hwpx.

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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool vs. siblings: 'When a user provides a reference HWPX, first call analyze_hwpx() and extract_hwpx_xml()... then pass it here.' This is direct alternative/prerequisite guidance. The numbered workflow also clears up the sequence of operations.

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