hwp_merge_current_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explains the merge action and the need for prior selection, but does not mention if selection is consumed or preserved after the operation. Despite this minor gap, the description is clear and adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: first stating the primary function, second providing context and differentiation. Every sentence is purposeful and adds value without unnecessary 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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers prerequisite (already selected cells), distinguishes from sibling, and notes the version. No additional information is needed for effective use.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description does not need to add parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 4 is appropriate as no additional param context is required.

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?

Description clearly states the tool merges currently selected table cell blocks, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling hwp_table_merge_cells by specifying that it operates on an 'already selected state' versus coordinate-based merging, providing clear differentiation.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: prerequisite steps (creating a block with TableCellBlock + TableCellBlockExtend), and contrast with hwp_table_merge_cells. This tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use the alternative, fulfilling high-quality guidelines.

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