hwp_xml_edit_nested_cell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only the insides of linesegarray cells are automatically deleted and that charPrIDRef is preserved. However, it does not mention file overwriting behavior, error handling, or what happens if the path is invalid. More comprehensive behavioral context is needed.

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 concise, consisting of about four sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes an example. Minor improvements in structural formatting (e.g., bullet points) could enhance readability, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given the complexity of handling nested tables and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the core mechanism (path array) and relationship to siblings. However, it lacks information on return values, error conditions, and how it integrates with other table manipulation tools. For a tool of this complexity, more completeness is warranted.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a concrete example of the path array, which clarifies usage, but does not significantly extend beyond the schema. 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 clearly states it edits text in nested HWPX table cells using a recursive path. It includes an example path and explicitly distinguishes itself from the single-level sibling `hwp_xml_edit_table_cell`, making the purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 mentions it is a multi-level extension of `hwp_xml_edit_table_cell`, implying that tool is for single-level edits. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or list alternative tools for different scenarios. More structured guidelines would improve agent decision-making.

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