hwp_autopilot_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the pipeline steps (write, style, TOC, verify, save, PDF, layout validation), session state auto-save, cancel check, and version-specific default behaviors for auto_fix and preserve_template_style. It discloses the behavioral changes across versions. It does not mention file overwriting behavior or error handling, but overall it is fairly transparent.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then provides key details about modes and version-specific defaults. It is concise with no filler, but the dense formatting (version numbers, parameter names) could be more readable. Overall efficient.

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?

With no output schema and 16 parameters, the description covers the pipeline flow, modes, and some parameter defaults. However, it does not specify the return value or response structure (e.g., what plan returns vs execute, or what 'awaiting_approval' means). The plan_session_id interaction is mentioned but not fully explained. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand the complete interaction.

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?

All 16 parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds pipeline-level context but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. It mentions version-dependent defaults for some parameters, but this is marginal improvement.

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 clearly states that the tool is a 12-step pipeline for automatic document creation, taking sections and tables, applying templates, styling, TOC, validation, save, PDF, and layout validation. It distinguishes mode=plan from mode=execute. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like hwp_document_create, though the pipeline nature is evident.

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 explains the two modes: plan for estimation, execute for actual run. It mentions defaults for auto_fix and preserve_template_style and that sections/tables can be omitted with plan_session_id. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hwp_autopilot_plan or hwp_document_create, and does not specify prerequisites or when not to use it.

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