preview_current_hwp_document

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it creates a new file (never touching the original), returns a preview_token, and requires .hwpx format. It also explains the effect of each route and the outcome for unsupported .hwp files. This provides complete transparency beyond what the schema offers.

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 compact and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, then breaks into two clearly separated usage paths, mentions the error case, and ends with the success result. Every sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy, achieving high density of useful 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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the preview workflow, parameter constraints, error conditions, and the overall process (new file, untouched original). This provides a complete understanding for a preview tool with moderate complexity.

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 description adds significant meaning to key parameters (`values`, `edits`, `output_path`) by explaining their purpose, constraints (mutual exclusivity), and behavior (e.g., new file creation). However, it does not mention `mode` or `candidate_id`. Given the 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well for the most critical parameters but omits two.

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's action ('Preview... pathlessly without writing it'), specifies the two routes (values vs. edits) with a clear distinction, and contrasts with likely siblings like apply_to_current_hwp_document by mentioning it returns a preview_token for later application. The verb 'Preview' is specific and accurately describes the output.

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 explicitly instructs to use either `values` or `edits`, never both, and explains the complete_and_load route. It also specifies that .hwp files are not supported. However, it does not directly compare against sibling preview tools (e.g., preview_addressed_edits) or state when to use this tool over them. The guidance is clear for the two main parameters but lacks broader context against alternatives.

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