page_guard_hwpx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the exact comparison dimensions (paragraph count, table count, table dimensions, page/column breaks, text length) and warns that restructures will be reported as failures. It stops short of detailing threshold behavior or return format, but the output schema covers return values.

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 efficiently structured: one-sentence purpose, one-sentence best-use, one-sentence warning, and a compact list of comparison criteria. Every clause earns its place and the main point 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?

Given a 4-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and clear sibling differentiation, the description fully covers usage context, exclusions, comparison scope, and alternative tool routing. No critical contextual gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides for max_text_delta and max_paragraph_delta. It does contextually tie them to the 'same-structure' use case but repeats no parameter details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check that output HWPX has not drifted in page count vs a reference.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on page-count/structure drift and explicitly references validate_hwpx for integrity checks instead.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Best for SAME-STRUCTURE edits') and when-not-to-use guidance ('When sections are added, removed, or restructured... use validate_hwpx for integrity checks instead'). This is a model of usage clarity.

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