hwp_form_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: auto_fix is no-op since v0.7.5.4, table_cell_overrides/field_overrides allow direct control, and phases have specific stopping points. However, it lacks detail on file modification side effects, error handling, and permissions.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and phase summary. It is somewhat verbose due to version details, but each sentence provides useful context. No wasted repetition.

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 12 parameters, nested objects, and lack of output schema, the description covers the workflow phases, auto_fix behavior, and override mechanisms comprehensively. It lacks return value description but otherwise provides sufficient context for an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds some value by explaining phase behavior (e.g., 'all' is read-only) and auto_fix settings, but much of the description mirrors 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 it is a form file attachment workflow with specific phases (learn, plan, preview, fill, verify, rollback). It distinguishes itself by describing the phase structure and read-only default. However, it is somewhat technical and could be more concise for an AI agent.

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 each phase (e.g., 'fill' requires explicit user call, 'all' is read-only) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like hwp_fill_fields or hwp_fill_table_cells. An agent might benefit from guidance on when to choose this workflow over other form-related tools.

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