delete_hwp_table_column

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It reveals that the operation removes <hp:tc> elements from every row, which is useful. However, it does not indicate whether the file is modified in place or if output_path (optional) changes behavior. The destructive nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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, no redundant information. It front-loads the action and then lists arguments. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet list), but it is efficient and clear.

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 (4 parameters, optional output, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what happens if output_path is omitted, error handling, file size limits, or any side effects. The behavioral detail on <hp:tc> removal is a plus, but overall, essential context is missing.

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%, meaning the description must compensate. It lists the parameter names but adds no additional meaning—e.g., file_path format, table_index meaning (0-based?), col_index 0-based confirmed in action but not in args section, output_path behavior when omitted. The description provides minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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: 'Delete the Mth column (0-based) from the Nth table in an .hwpx'. It specifies the resource (column in table), the file type (.hwpx), and provides technical detail about what is removed ('removes one <hp:tc> from every row'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_hwp_table_row or delete_hwp_image.

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 use when needing to delete a column from a table, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use. Siblings include other deletion tools, but no comparative guidance is provided.

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