Add, update, delete, or list annotations in Hangul (.hwpx/.hwp) documents by range or target, with optional author.
메모. action: add(range, text, author?); update(target, text); delete(target); list()
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | ||
| range | No | Locator(글 범위: s0/p3:5-12, s0/p2..s0/p9, find:"…") | |
| action | Yes | ||
| author | No | ||
| handle | No | document.new/open이 준 handle | |
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only implies mutation via add/update/delete. It omits whether operations require specific permissions or an open document handle, what delete destroys, and whether results are returned or confirmed.
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?
It is very compact and front-loads the resource name before the action breakdown, which is efficient. The telegraphic action-signature style is dense and borderline under-specified rather than wasteful.
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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters, the description is not complete enough. It covers the action-to-parameter mapping but omits handle usage, target/range semantics, and any return or error behavior.
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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does add value by mapping which parameters each action consumes (add: range/text/author, update: target/text, delete: target). But the 6th parameter 'handle' is never mentioned in the description, and 'target' semantics are left entirely unexplained.
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 names the resource (메모/memo) and enumerates the four supported actions (add/update/delete/list) with their parameter signatures, so the general purpose is inferable. However it never states what a 'memo' actually attaches to or does within the document, and it gives no contrast with the closely-named sibling 'note', so the boundary remains ambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. The action signatures imply usage but nothing tells the agent when memo is preferable to the sibling 'note' tool or what prerequisite state (open document) is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.