hwp_file_param_action

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes mechanics of param sets but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or failure behavior, despite covering potentially destructive operations such as HFileSaveAs, HFileConvert, HFileSendMail, and overwrite flags.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, then organized into compact bullets and an Args block. The length is justified by the large number of supported param sets, and each entry contributes information an agent would need.

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 tool has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not necessary, and the description provides a comprehensive catalog of param sets. However, significant gaps remain: there is no mapping from action_name to param_set_name, no prerequisites for doc_id on all operations, and no warnings about destructive or side-effecting actions. For a generic executor over HWP's rich file operations, this is a meaningful but not fatal 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates well: it explains doc_id, action_name, param_set_name, and params, and lists the key properties of each supported file param set with type hints for several values. It does not enumerate valid action_name values or which actions pair with which param sets, but the parameter meaning is largely clear.

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 the action ('Execute HWP action') and the resource class ('file-related HParameterSet'), and enumerates specific param set names such as HFileOpen, HFileSaveAs, and HFileConvert. This distinguishes it from sibling param-action tools at least by domain, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this generic file-param executor versus dedicated tools like open_document, save_document, get_file_info, or the sibling hwp_table_param_action / hwp_draw_param_action tools. The phrase 'file-related' implies scope but does not provide selection criteria or exclusions.

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