apply_to_current_hwp_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the token is authoritative, revalidation occurs, and differentiates between mutating the live document versus creating a new file with complete_and_load tokens. It also notes what the tool does not expose. This adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main action. Every sentence adds value, though the second sentence is dense with two behavioral modes. Overall, it is efficient and avoids fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and key behavioral distinctions. It implicitly assumes the agent knows to preview first. Explicit error conditions or side effects are not stated, but the output schema likely handles return values.

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 input schema for preview_token has 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining the token's role: a previously previewed pathless current-document edit, and further distinguishes between token types. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states it applies a previously previewed pathless current-document edit by token. It differentiates between normal apply and complete_and_load tokens. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling apply tools like apply_addressed_edits or apply_edit_session, which share a similar prefix.

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 explains the token-based invocation and mentions revalidation before mutation. It also notes the absence of a timeout_seconds worker-isolation contract. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explicitly state prerequisites like 'must have previewed'.

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