hwp_set_table_border

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions needed, whether operation is revertible, or constraints (e.g., only works on certain table types). Lacks important context for an AI 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?

Single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating whole-table vs cell application for clarity.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should explain return behavior or confirmation. It does not mention whether it returns success/failure or modifies the document in place. Also lacks error conditions or usage hints, making it less complete for complex workflows.

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% with inline descriptions for each parameter (e.g., '테두리 색상 (#RRGGBB)'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 tool sets table border style, with ability to apply to entire table or specific cells. Verb '설정합니다' (set) specifies action, resource is table border, and it distinguishes from sibling table tools like hwp_table_merge_cells or hwp_set_cell_color.

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 such as hwp_set_cell_property or other table modification tools. Does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid, or related tools for comparison.

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