insert_hwp_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal file modifications (BinData, content.hpf, paragraph insertion) and parameter defaults (ext auto-derived). However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether existing content is overwritten), error conditions, or permissions needed. Adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 concise, with two sentences front-loading the purpose and internal behavior. The second sentence lists parameters efficiently. No wasted words, though the parameter listing could be structured for easier scanning (e.g., bullet points).

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits details like where the paragraph is appended (end of document?), what if file_path doesn't exist, and what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator). The internal steps provided are helpful but not sufficient for full agent understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must clarify parameters. It lists all four parameters and explains ext auto-derivation from source_path. However, file_path and source_path are not explicitly defined (e.g., file_path is the .hwpx file, source_path is the image to insert). The description adds some value but leaves ambiguity for critical parameters.

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 inserts a new image into an .hwpx file, detailing the internal steps (adds to BinData/, registers in content.hpf, appends paragraph with inline <hp:pic>). This specific verb+resource clearly distinguishes it from siblings like replace_hwp_image 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 usage for adding new images but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as replace_hwp_image or extract_hwp_images. No guidance on when not to use it is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the purpose alone.

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