hwp_table_param_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only says 'Execute HWP action' and does not state whether the action mutates the document, requires additional setup, is undoable, or can fail if the action and param set do not match. This is a meaningful transparency gap for an action that can modify tables.

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 long but earns its length: the parameter-set catalog is essential for a generic action tool with an open-ended params object. The structure is clear (introduction, supported param sets, args), though more compact formatting could reduce cognitive load.

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 high-complexity tool with no annotations and an opaque output schema, the description omits the relationship between action_name and param_set_name, valid action values, and how params should be structured in practice. It provides a catalog of properties but no example invocation and no note on limitations, so it is not complete enough for an agent to call reliably in novel cases.

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 by enumerating 14 param_set_name values and their key properties, plus one-line definitions for doc_id, action_name, param_set_name, and params. It even provides inline enum values such as WidthType and VertAlign, though it omits types for many property values and the nested shape of CreateItemArray and TableProperties.

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 opening sentence names the verb and resource: 'Execute HWP action with table-related HParameterSet', and the list of supported param_set_name values makes the table focus explicit. It differentiates from sibling param_action tools only by the word 'table-related', but that is enough to route an agent into the correct family.

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 guidance on when to use this generic low-level action versus the many table-specific sibling tools such as create_table, set_table_cell_text, split_table_cell, table_to_text, or swap_table_row_col. The description implies the domain by listing table param sets, but it never states conditions, exclusions, or preferred alternatives.

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