hwp_review_and_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool performs checks, calculates scores, and optionally attempts safe auto-fixes, returning score_before/after. It does not disclose whether the document is permanently modified, but 'safe automatic fix' suggests non-destructive behavior. Overall, it provides reasonable transparency.

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 in Korean with version info. It efficiently communicates the core functionality. The version number could be considered unnecessary but does not detract significantly.

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?

The description mentions returns score_before/after, which is useful given no output schema. However, it does not explain the score format, whether auto-fix modifies the document, or how to interpret results. The tool has 4 parameters and a composite function, but the description lacks completeness for a complex tool.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value: it mentions consistency/privacy/formatting checks but omits 'typos' which is in the enum. The description also states output behavior (score_before/after) but that is not parameter meaning. Thus, 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 states 'comprehensive document review' with specific checks (consistency, privacy, formatting) and score calculation. It is clear about the tool's purpose but does not distinguish from sibling tools like hwp_privacy_scan or hwp_validate_consistency, which perform similar individual checks.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not. The implicit usage is for document review, but explicit when/when-not is absent.

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