preview_current_hwp_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that preview is pathless, original stays untouched, .hwp returns an error, and success returns a preview_token. However, it omits behaviors for the 'mode' and 'candidate_id' parameters, and does not specify what happens if both values and edits are provided (error handling).

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence summarizing purpose, followed by a paragraph explaining the two routes and constraints. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise by removing redundancies like 'without writing it' and 'pathlessly.'

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 (5 parameters, many sibling preview tools, no annotations), the description covers the main scenario and constraints but is incomplete. It does not explain the 'mode' or 'candidate_id' parameters, and lacks comparison with sibling tools. An output schema exists, so return format detail is not needed, but behavioral gaps remain.

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 compensate. It adds meaning for 'values', 'edits', and 'output_path', but does not explain 'mode' or 'candidate_id'. Only 3 of 5 parameters are partially covered, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 explicitly states the tool previews the current .hwpx document without writing, and distinguishes from other preview tools by focusing on the current document and the apply route. The verb 'preview' and resource 'current .hwpx document' are specific and clear.

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 gives explicit usage constraints: 'Pass values for small live fills OR edits for the complete_and_load route — never both.' It explains when to use each option and the outcome. However, it does not differentiate from sibling preview tools like preview_addressed_edits, missing some comparative guidance.

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