hwp_table_split_cell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lacks details on side effects (e.g., cell content handling), prerequisites (e.g., needing a selected cell), or error scenarios. The version info adds some transparency but is insufficient.

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 very concise: two sentences that front-load the main action. However, the second sentence is technical and could be clearer, slightly reducing structure quality.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description does not mention return values or side effects. It also omits prerequisites like being inside a table. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in contextual completeness.

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 schema already describes parameters. The description adds minimal extra value, just noting optionality and default split dimensions, and mentioning an internal 'HAction ParameterSet' path, which may not aid an AI agent.

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 clearly states the tool splits the current cell in a table, using the verb 'split' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like merge or add rows/columns.

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?

The description explains that rows/cols are optional with a default of 2x1, and mentions version requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not guidance.

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