hwp_korean_business_fill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It details a 6-step process including document type detection, snapshot caching, guide deletion, cell/body insertion, saving to a new path (ensuring original preservation), and 5-stage verification. This provides sufficient behavioral insight for an agent.

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 well-structured with numbered steps and front-loaded purpose, but it includes version info ('v0.7.5.4') which is minor clutter. Overall concise and readable.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: input template, fill maps, output path, verification toggle, and guide deletion. It could mention the return value (success/error) but is largely complete for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to add much. It lists the steps that correspond to parameters but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage 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 identifies the tool as an automated filler for Korean government forms ('공무원 양식 원스톱 자동 작성'), specifies the steps involved, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a high-level orchestration entry point for business plans, official documents, and reports.

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?

It recommends itself as the entry point for automating business plans/official documents/reports, implying its use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention specific alternative tools for simpler fill tasks, so there is room for clearer exclusion criteria.

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