hwp_document_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses two traits: works without Hancom program and generated file is compatible with Hancom. However, it does not specify whether the tool overwrites existing files at output_path, nor does it mention error handling or limitations.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences, each adding distinct value: what it creates, independence from Hancom, and output compatibility. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simple creation tool with no output schema and absent annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers basic functionality and key behavior (standalone, compatibility) but missing details like overwrite policy and required path format. Completeness is sufficient for a minimal viable description.

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 schema already provides meaning for both parameters (title optional, output_path as file path). The description adds little beyond confirming the document is empty. Since schema does most of the work, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool creates an empty HWPX document, using specific verb '생성합니다' (create) and resource '빈 HWPX 문서' (empty HWPX document). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by being the only one focused on creating a new empty document, as others operate on existing documents.

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 implies usage for creating an empty HWPX file but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hwp_insert_text or hwp_table_create_from_data. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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