hwp_enter_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that the cursor moves to the first cell, supports nested tables via path, and mentions the version. It does not disclose potential side effects, but the tool is non-destructive and behavior is well-covered.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. It includes necessary details (version, path format, example, workflow) without being verbose. Slightly technical but appropriate for the audience.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the outcome (cursor positioned) and the workflow (enter, then use other tools, then exit). It also provides an example path and version info, making it complete for the tool's purpose.

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% and the description adds substantial meaning: it explains the dual nature of table_index (number vs array), details the path format with an example, and clarifies the select_cell parameter default. This goes far beyond the schema 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 description clearly states '지정된 표에 진입하여 첫 셀에 커서를 위치시킵니다' (enter specified table and position cursor at first cell). It distinguishes from sibling tools like hwp_exit_table and hwp_navigate_cell by specifying the entry action and the subsequent workflow.

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 when to use this tool: before calling hwp_navigate_cell, hwp_insert_text, etc., and notes that hwp_exit_table should be called after work. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it (e.g., when already inside a table).

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