apply_to_open_hwp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that only value insertion is supported, no formatting live, details two modes (pathless vs broker-targeted), refuses to guess across brokers, and notes the lack of a timeout contract. This gives the agent a clear understanding of behavior and limitations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and adds detailed but relevant information in subsequent sentences. It avoids redundancy or filler, but could be slightly more concise by combining some clauses. Still, it efficiently conveys necessary information.

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 has three parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, modes, and limitations. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., document must be open) or error handling (e.g., missing fields), but these are somewhat implied by the domain. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 add meaning. It explains the 'path' parameter's dual mode behavior and clarifies that 'values' maps field names to strings. The 'visible' parameter is not mentioned, but its default true is self-explanatory. Overall, it compensates well for missing schema descriptions.

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 the tool performs one-shot value fill of named form fields in the open Hangul window. It differentiates from file-mode delegate tools for formatting/styling, and mentions legacy pathless vs broker-targeted modes, establishing a distinct purpose among siblings.

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 provides when to use (value fill in open Hangul window) and when not (formatting/styling edits should use file-mode delegate tools). It also explains the two operation modes, but does not explicitly compare with all siblings like 'fill_form' or 'apply_to_current_hwp_document', leaving some ambiguity.

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