complete_addressed_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool writes out_path only, does not mutate the open Hangul window, uses structural addresses, and does not treat repeated text as document-wide replace without explicit scope. This is comprehensive and transparent.

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 in the first sentence, followed by clear, actionable guidance. Every sentence adds value: usage constraints, addressing rules, and behavioral notes. It is efficient without being verbose.

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 complexity (4 parameters, many siblings, output schema exists), the description covers the essential workflow and constraints. It does not detail return values or error handling, but since an output schema is present (as per context), this is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 for top-level parameters is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the role of path, edits, and out_path in context. It explains that edits is an array of addressed edits, and out_path is where the new copy is written. However, 'verify' is not described beyond its default being true, which is a minor gap.

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 completes a whole template in one addressed file-mode call, writes a new copy, and distinguishes from alternatives like one-call-per-cell or live field writes. It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools by emphasizing structural addresses and file-mode operation.

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 explicit guidance: gather all values first, send one edits array, do not use for per-cell calls, start in file mode rather than mixing live writes, and note that it writes to out_path only without mutating the open document. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool over others like apply_to_current_hwp_document.

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