complete_addressed_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'writes out_path only and does not mutate the already-open same Hangul window,' and that edits use structural addresses. It also warns against treating repeated text as document-wide replace without explicit scope. This provides adequate behavioral transparency for a file-writing tool.

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 concise paragraph of 5-6 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. It avoids unnecessary repetition and covers key points efficiently. While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), it remains clear and well-organized.

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 complexity of the tool (4 parameters, nested AddressedEdit schema) and the large number of sibling tools, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the mode, output, address format, and key behavioral constraints. The output schema (not shown) likely covers return values, so the description is adequately complete.

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 has 0% description coverage for top-level parameters, but the description adds context: it explains that edits should be sent as one array, and that the tool writes a new copy to out_path. It also clarifies that 'edits do NOT require {} named fields; use structural addresses.' This adds meaning beyond the schema, compensating for the lack of parameter 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 purpose: 'Complete a whole template in ONE addressed file-mode call and write a new copy.' It specifies the action (complete a whole template), the mode (addressed file-mode), and the output (write a new copy). It distinguishes itself from per-cell calls and live field writes, differentiating from siblings like apply_addressed_edits.

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 usage guidance: 'Gather or generate all values first, then send one edits array here — not one call per cell.' It also advises to 'Start in file mode for whole-template completion instead of mixing live field writes and falling back to file mode later.' While it doesn't name specific alternatives, it clearly implies when to use this tool and what to avoid.

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