hwp_style_param_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Execute HWP action' and never explains whether this mutates the document, what side effects occur, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on failure. The prerequisite doc_id='Document ID from open_document' is useful but not enough.

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: purpose is front-loaded, supported param sets are presented as scannable bullets, and each listed property or type adds needed guidance. Despite length, no sentence is filler given the tool's complexity.

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 is substantial for param_set_name and params, but an agent still lacks a supported action_name mapping, guidance on how nested values like LeftBorder should be structured, and behavioral context such as side effects or document prerequisites beyond doc_id. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but these invocation-critical gaps remain.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to all parameters, especially param_set_name by enumerating valid values with key properties, and params by describing them as 'Properties to set on the param set.' However, action_name remains generic ('HWP action to execute') with no list or mapping to valid 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 states a specific resource: 'Execute HWP action with style/border HParameterSet' and reinforces it by enumerating six valid param_set_name values. This clearly differentiates it from sibling hwp_*_param_action tools like table or draw variants.

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 description gives clear context by listing exactly which param sets are accepted and saying param_set_name 'Must be one of the style param sets listed above.' It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to select this tool over siblings.

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