apply_hwp_text_style

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

The description discloses internal behavior (adding charPr to header.xml, retargeting <hp:run>) and specifies color format. No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it mostly succeeds but omits details like what happens if target_text is not found.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and concisely listing parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the tool's operation and parameters well. Minor gaps: no error handling, no mention of behavior when multiple runs contain target_text. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a tool of this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all parameters: file_path, target_text, color (with hex example), bold/italic/underline (boolean), font_size (number), and optional output_path. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare property names.

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 applies formatting (color/bold/italic/underline/font_size) to the first run containing target_text, distinguishing it from sibling tools like apply_hwp_paragraph_style which formats paragraphs.

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 implies usage for formatting the first run with target text, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context of siblings suggests other formatting tools exist, but no exclusion criteria are given.

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