set_engine_properties

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'Set' properties, implying mutation, but does not explain effects on the engine, whether changes are persistent, what happens if doc_id is invalid, or what response 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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise Args section. Every sentence is useful, though the brevity comes at the cost of useful detail.

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 setter tool with no annotations and a fully open action_params object, the description is incomplete. It does not list acceptable property fields, explain how values should be structured, or state when this tool is the right choice among many sibling setter tools.

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 some meaning by labeling doc_id as 'Document ID from open_document' and action_params as 'HEngineProperties fields to set,' but action_params remains an open object with no enumerated or example field keys, leaving a major ambiguity.

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 verb and resource: 'Set HWP engine properties' with examples like spell check and auto-save. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling set_hwp_property, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 alternatives. The description mentions doc_id comes from open_document, which is a mild contextual clue, but it never says when to prefer set_engine_properties over set_hwp_property or other property-setting tools.

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