hwp_document_merge

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the merge action without disclosing behavioral details such as whether the operation is destructive, how the content is inserted (append vs. cursor position), or the impact on formatting. This leaves significant gaps.

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 only two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the key action. Every word is essential with no fluff.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details such as merge behavior (e.g., append vs. replace), error conditions, or prerequisites like document state. More context would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has full coverage for the single parameter 'file_path' with a description. The tool description does not add additional semantic value beyond the schema, but since the schema already explains it, the 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 verb ('합칩니다', meaning merges) and resource ('다른 HWP 문서의 내용' into the current document). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'hwp_document_split' by specifying the merging action.

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 states when to use this tool ('여러 문서를 하나로 합칠 때'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, missing some guidance.

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