hwp_doc_info_param_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Execute HWP action' and 'Properties to set.' It does not state whether the operation mutates the document, requires permissions, is reversible, or what the action invocation actually does with the parameter set.

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 longer than average, but the parameter-set list is structured and earns its place because the schema provides no enums or descriptions. The core operation is front-loaded and the Args section clearly maps to schema fields.

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 tool with nine parameter-set variants and no schema descriptions, the list of supported sets and properties is valuable and mostly adequate. It remains incomplete because it does not explain how action_name should be chosen, whether params are required for setting vs reading, or provide any example call, and the output schema only mitigates the return-value gap.

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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining doc_id, action_name, param_set_name, and params, plus the valid properties for each supported parameter set. It falls short of a 5 because valid action_name values and the exact mapping between actions and parameter sets are not specified.

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 a concrete verb and resource: it executes an HWP action using a document-info HParameterSet, and it enumerates the supported doc-info parameter sets. This clearly distinguishes its domain from sibling param-action tools, though 'HWP action' remains generic without examples of valid action names.

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 'Must be one of the doc info param sets listed above' constraint and supported-parameter-set list imply when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over run_hwp_action, get_document_info, or the sibling hwp_*_param_action tools.

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