hwp_hanja_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 reveals property names and types but does not state whether the action mutates the document, whether dialog boxes may appear, what side effects occur, or what the return value means. The param-set details are parameter semantics, not behavior.

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 content is structured as a clear list of supported param sets with their properties, which is genuinely useful for a complex API. It front-loads the core action and then organizes details without obvious redundancy.

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 param-set inventory covers the most complex part of invocation and is practically sufficient for calling the tool. However, it omits guidance on how action_name relates to param_set_name, gives no behavioral or side-effect context, and provides no usage direction relative to sibling tools. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is less critical, but the other gaps keep it from being fully complete.

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 thoroughly by documenting each supported param_set_name along with its key properties, types, and enum meanings (e.g., ConvertType 0=hanja, 1=hangul; Range 0=all, 1=selection). This goes well beyond the minimal schema and gives the agent enough detail to construct correct params.

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 tool executes an HWP action with a hanja/conversion HParameterSet and enumerates the supported param set names, giving the agent a concrete sense of scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like run_hwp_action or hwp_misc_param_action, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The list of hanja/conversion param sets implies a specific domain, but the description does not state when to prefer this over run_hwp_action, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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