replace_action

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says a replacement occurs. It does not explain side effects, whether old_action must exist, what 'action handler' means, or error behavior, leaving an agent with little understanding of the operation's impact.

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 tight and front-loaded, with no wasted sentences. The Args section is minimal and readable, earning its place by clarifying the two parameters.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a tool that mutates action handlers. It omits what an action handler is, how names are resolved, whether replacement is global or scoped, and what failure conditions look like. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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?

The Args section gives basic one-line meanings for both parameters, which adds some value over the bare schema titles. However, the definitions are largely circular ('Action name to replace' / 'Replacement action name') and offer no format, allowed values, or relationship to other action-related tools.

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?

States a specific verb ('replace') and resource ('action handler'), making the core function clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling hwp_*_action tools, so differentiation is left to the reader.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_hwp_action or hwp_*_param_action. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context clues to help an agent decide if this is the right tool.

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