hwp_misc_param_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the action modifies the document, what side effects may occur, permissions required, or any return behavior. The description is essentially a catalogue of param sets, not an explanation of the tool's runtime behavior or consequences.

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 very long (dozens of lines) but well-organized with categories and bullet-like lists. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then provides necessary reference data. However, it is not concise; it could be trimmed or linked to external docs for the exhaustive param set details.

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 complex tool covering 67 param sets, the description covers many key sets and their properties, but it does not explain the action mechanism itself (how action_name and param_set_name interact), does not describe the output schema, and notes the list is not exhaustive ('key param_set_name values include'). This leaves gaps for an agent to use it correctly, especially regarding side effects and return values.

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% for descriptions, and the description adds substantial meaning: it defines doc_id as 'Document ID from open_document', action_name as 'HWP action to execute', param_set_name with a huge list of valid values and their properties, and params as 'Properties to set on the param set'. This far exceeds the bare schema fields and compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute HWP action with miscellaneous HParameterSet.' It explicitly identifies itself as the catch-all for all 67 sets not covered by specialized tools, distinguishing it from siblings like hwp_table_param_action and hwp_shape_param_action. This is clear and differentiates from the many sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly states 'This is the catch-all for all 67 remaining HParameterSets not covered by the specialized category tools,' giving direct routing guidance. It also lists many param set examples, making concrete when this tool applies versus when to use a specialized category tool.

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