hwp_shape_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 of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'execute' and lists parameters. It does not state whether the action mutates the document, what side effects may occur, whether the operation is reversible, or what errors or return behavior to expect.

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 appropriately sized for the complexity, with a front-loaded purpose sentence and a well-organized bulleted list of param set schemas. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema but still concise and useful.

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 documentation is rich, and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. However, for a generic action executor with an unconstrained action_name and free-form params object, the description leaves critical invocation details unspecified, such as which action names pair with which param sets and whether listed properties are optional.

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 defining doc_id, constraining param_set_name to six enumerated sets, and listing key properties with types such as bool, float, list, and a Format enum. However, action_name is only described as 'HWP action to execute' with no valid values or mapping to the listed param sets.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair, 'Execute HWP action with shape object HParameterSet,' and then enumerates six supported param_set_name values, which makes the tool's domain unmistakable. This clearly differentiates it from sibling table, file, style, and other param-action 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?

Usage guidance is implied through the list of allowed shape param sets and the instruction that param_set_name must be one of them. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool over siblings like hwp_draw_param_action or hwp_table_param_action.

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