hwp_toggle_checkbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool toggles checkbox characters via find-and-replace, but lacks details on scope (entire document or selection), case sensitivity, or what happens if no match is found. The examples help but are minimal.

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?

Two concise sentences in Korean that front-load the action, provide examples, and state the usage context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 is adequate for a simple tool but misses details on document state (e.g., document must be open), return value, and whether it operates on selection or entire document. Given no output schema, some gaps remain.

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%, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already explain 'find' and 'replace' with examples. No additional value is provided.

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 '문서의 체크박스를 전환합니다' (toggles checkboxes in the document) with examples of transformations (□→■, ☐→☑). It distinguishes itself from sibling find/replace tools by specifically targeting checkbox toggling in forms.

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 provides a clear usage context: '양식에서 특정 항목을 체크할 때 사용' (used when checking a specific item in a form). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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