set_char_shape

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation operation but does not disclose side effects, whether the change applies to the current selection, how properties interact with existing shapes, or whether any validation or normalization occurs. The arbitrary 'properties' object makes these gaps significant.

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 a single efficient sentence with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the action and resource, and the example list adds useful signal despite the brevity. Some additional structural elaboration would improve it, but there is no waste.

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?

Given the free-form properties object and the large sibling set of style and shape tools, the description is not sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks information about how doc_id relates to the document context, what shape entities are affected, and what valid property keys and value structures look like. The output schema may cover return values, but the input side is severely under-specified.

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 provides only a few examples of property kinds without defining valid keys or value formats. The 'properties' parameter is an unrestricted object, so the agent is left without enough information to construct a valid call. The examples add slight value but do not compensate for the opaque schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('extended character shape properties') and gives concrete examples ('spacing, ratio, shadow, outline'). This makes the core purpose understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like set_text_style or hwp_shape_param_action.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling style tools. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, so an agent would have to infer when 'extended character shape properties' is the correct choice among tools like set_text_style, set_paragraph_style, and hwp_shape_param_action.

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