hwp_selection_param_action

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It provides some meaningful behavior context by listing selection/navigation param sets and their fields, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the tool mutates document state, or what happens on invalid actions. The behavior is still largely delegated to the opaque action_name.

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 well structured with a front-loaded summary, a compact bullet list of supported param sets, and a concise Args section. Every sentence or bullet adds information; there is no redundant restating of the schema.

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 description covers the major param set categories and their key fields, which is substantial given the tool's low-level nature. Yet it lacks a list of valid action_name values, an example invocation, and explicit guidance on parameter combinations. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed, but the gap on action_name remains significant.

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 well by documenting valid param_set_name values and key fields such as SelectionType, Direction, and ViewMode. It also clarifies that params holds properties for the param set. However, action_name values are left undefined, and individual property types are only partially 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 states a specific action ('Execute HWP action') combined with a clear resource category ('selection/navigation HParameterSet'). It enumerates the exact supported param set names, which distinguishes it from sibling hwp_*_param_action tools without requiring schema inspection.

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 scope is implied by 'selection/navigation' and the listed param sets, so an agent can infer this is for cursor/selection-related operations. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over run_hwp_action or the other hwp_*_param_action siblings, nor does it state exclusions.

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