hwp_xml_edit_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool modifies text inside HWPX (ZIP+XML) but does not mention side effects (e.g., file overwrite behavior, backup recommendations), permissions, or idempotency. A mutation tool with zero annotations should provide more behavioral context.

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 highly concise with three short sentences. The first sentence states the main action, the second adds a key differentiator, and the third repeats the mechanism. No superfluous words, well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool modifies files, lacks annotations, and has many sibling tools, the description is too brief. It does not explain the optional output_path behavior (overwrite vs. save as), potential risks, or limitations. A modification tool should provide completeness about its operation.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score is appropriate; the description does not harm parameter understanding but also does not enhance it.

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 that the tool directly finds and replaces text in HWPX files without needing the HWP program. It identifies the resource (HWPX file text) and action (modification). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling find/replace tools (e.g., hwp_find_replace), relying on the fact that it works on raw XML.

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 'works without HWP program', which implies usage when the HWP automation is unavailable. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hwp_find_replace, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is implied but not explicit.

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