hwp_find_replace_nth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that the tool modifies the document (replaces text), but does not mention what happens if the Nth occurrence does not exist, whether the operation is undoable, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient behavioral 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and provides a use-case statement and sibling differentiation. It is concise with no redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet-like).

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the purpose and usage context adequately. However, it lacks behavioral completeness (e.g., error cases, what happens if nth is out of range) and does not mention any prerequisites or document state requirements. This makes the description minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.

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%, and the schema already provides clear descriptions for each parameter (find, replace, nth). The description adds contextual value by explaining the Nth behavior and distinguishing from AllReplace, but does not add new meaning to individual parameters beyond the schema. Baseline 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's action (replaces only the Nth occurrence of text in the document), identifies the resource (document), and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with AllReplace. The verb '치환' (replace) and resource '문서' (document) are specific.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: '같은 텍스트가 여러 곳에 있을 때 특정 위치만 바꿀 때 사용하세요' (use when you want to change only a specific location when the same text appears multiple places). It also contrasts with AllReplace, helping the agent choose. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear.

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