apply_to_open_hwp

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

Discloses preconditions and return values, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether document is saved, undo possibility, or behavior with invalid field mappings). No annotations are provided, so description bears full burden.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose; no wasted words. Could add a bit more structure (e.g., bullet points for parameters) but remains efficient.

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?

Covers requirements, version, and special return indicators. Since an output schema exists (though not shown), return value explanation is acceptable. Lacks error handling for missing document or non-Hangul files.

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 'values' parameter is explained as mapping field names to text, but the 'visible' boolean parameter is not mentioned at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain both parameters.

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?

Clearly states it fills values into the currently open Hangul document using COM, specifying the mechanism (PutFieldText) and distinguishing from siblings like fill_form by targeting the open document. The version indicator adds specificity.

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?

Explicitly lists requirements (Windows, Hangul, pywin32) and two return conditions (available: false if unmet, needs_field_registration if no named fields). However, it does not compare with siblings or state when to prefer this tool over fill_form.

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