insert_hwp_image

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry full burden. It explicitly states the tool modifies the .hwpx file structure: adds to BinData/, registers in content.hpf, appends paragraph with inline image. This discloses side effects beyond a simple 'insert' verb, though missing error conditions (e.g., duplicate names, unsupported ext).

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 a single sentence front-loaded with the action and key details. The argument list is appended succinctly. No extraneous words; every part earns its place.

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 and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's action and side effects. However, it omits the return value (e.g., success indicator or new image ID) and does not explain behavior when output_path is omitted. Still, it provides enough for basic agent use.

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%, forcing the description to define parameters. It lists four args and clarifies ext auto-detection and output_path optionality, but does not fully explain file_path (presumably the target .hwpx) or source_path (image source). The argument list adds value over the raw schema but lacks complete semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('image into an .hwpx'), and lists exact file system operations (adds to BinData/, registers in content.hpf, appends inline <hp:pic>). This clearly distinguishes the tool 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 lists arguments and notes ext auto-detection and optional output_path, but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., replace_hwp_image) or mention prerequisites like the .hwpx file being open or existing. Usage context is only implied through the action description.

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