hwp_fill_table_cells

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing content, error handling, or side effects. For a modification tool, this is a significant gap.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and prerequisite. It uses an example efficiently, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested arrays, multiple cell location methods), the description is minimal. It lacks information on error handling, return values, or detailed behavior. The schema is rich but the description doesn't fully contextualize usage among many table-related siblings.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by recommending label over tab/row/col for merged cells and giving an example, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 'fills values' and the resource 'table cells of the document.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that it's for filling table cells and recommends prerequisites (hwp_get_tables) and different methods (label, tab, row/col).

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 to first check the table structure with hwp_get_tables, recommends label matching for merged cells, and provides an example. It also mentions alternative methods (tab, row/col). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with siblings like hwp_fill_fields.

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