hwp_extend_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that content is appended to an existing section while preserving formatting via the preserve_format parameter, and that section location is found by title text. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the document is saved automatically), error conditions (e.g., section not found), or behavioral guarantees like atomicity. The version note adds minimal context.

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 (two sentences plus a version note) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly expanded for clarity. The structure is efficient, with no wasted 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?

Despite the description covering core behavior, it lacks completeness. There is no output schema, and the description does not mention return values (e.g., success status, modified section info). Error handling and prerequisites (e.g., document must be open) are omitted. For a tool that modifies a document, more context is expected.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that section_identifier searches by title text, and that content is paragraph-unit separated by newlines. It also implies the purpose of preserve_format. This goes beyond the basic schema definitions.

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 adds content at the end of a specific section in an existing form, preserving formatting. It uses a section identifier to locate the section by title text. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hwp_insert_text or hwp_insert_body_after_heading, though it could be more explicit about what constitutes a 'section' in HWP.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description mentions 'LLM-generated content' but does not clarify scenarios where other insertion tools (e.g., hwp_insert_text, hwp_insert_body_after_heading) would be more appropriate. No exclusionary criteria are given.

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