hwp_snapshot_template_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the behavior: caches profile to a specific file path (~/.hwp_studio_state/snap_XXX.json). It mentions it is a new feature and a prerequisite step. However, it does not state if the snapshot is overwritten on repeat calls or any required permissions.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded with the main action ('Caches the style profile'). Every sentence adds value: purpose, contents, file location, usage workflow. No wasted 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what is cached, where, and how it integrates with other tools. Missing details include return value (if any) and error conditions, but overall sufficient.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4 per rule. The description does not need to add parameter info, and the schema coverage is 100%. No further value needed.

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 (caches style profile as snapshot), the resource (form original's style profile), and the purpose (consistent styling for insert_body_after_heading). Also distinguishes itself from siblings like hwp_extract_style_profile by specifying it's a caching step for subsequent use.

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?

Description gives clear context: call after attaching the form, once, before using insert_body_after_heading. It is positioned as the first step. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like hwp_extract_style_profile.

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