create_official_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only mentions creation but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or what 'delegate' means. No indication of whether it is destructive or modifies existing files.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but uses jargon ('gongmun', 'delegate') without explanation. It could be clearer while maintaining conciseness.

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 (creating official documents with nested parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'skeleton' is, what 'delegate' implies, or how fields should be structured.

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%, yet the description does not explain parameters like 'fields' (expected keys) or 'out_path'. It merely mentions 'fields (delegate)' without clarifying their structure or purpose.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Create' and resource 'Korean official-document (gongmun) skeleton HWPX', specifying the operation. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like create_document_from_blocks or create_hwpx_from_markdown, lacking differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for HWPX creation, the description fails to provide context for appropriate usage.

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