hwp_insert_picture

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions cursor position insertion and table cell support, but fails to describe error cases, file validation, document state requirements, or the effect of the operation. Significant gaps remain.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and quickly adds key usage contexts and option details. No extraneous information.

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?

While the description covers the core action and parameter nuances, it lacks mention of return value, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., document must be open). For a moderately complex tool with 5 parameters, it is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the relationship between treat_as_char and embedded (보완 관계) and clarifying their meaning beyond the schema descriptions. However, it does not cover all parameters equally.

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 '삽입합니다' (inserts) and the resource '이미지' (image) at the current cursor position. It also mentions use inside table cells, distinguishing it from other insertion tools like hwp_insert_text or hwp_insert_markdown.

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 minimal usage context (usable in table cells) but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of prerequisites or comparison with sibling tools.

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