hwp_outdent

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

No annotations provided. Description lacks details on behavior such as whether indentation can be reduced below zero, what happens if no indentation exists, or the effect of omitting the depth parameter (default is 10pt but not stated).

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?

A single, concise sentence that directly conveys the core functionality with no unnecessary words. Perfectly structured for quick comprehension.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it misses stating that the operation applies to the current paragraph and does not specify the default behavior for depth, leaving some gaps.

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% for the single parameter 'depth', which already explains its type and default value. The tool description adds no extra information beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action (reduces paragraph indentation) and the scope (at current cursor position) with the specific term '내어쓰기' (outdent), effectively distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'hwp_indent' which does the opposite.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the counterpart of 'hwp_indent' or any prerequisites or context for using it.

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