replace_hwp_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions version and format support but does not state whether the operation is destructive, modifies files in-place, or requires specific permissions. The optional output_path suggests behavior but is not explained.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. It includes a version note and lists parameters efficiently. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate parameter explanations) without adding length.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or how it interacts with the file system. The sibling tools list suggests many alternatives, but the description provides no contextual differentiation.

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%, so the description should compensate. It lists the four parameters (file_path, old_text, new_text, output_path) but adds no semantic detail beyond their names. For example, it does not clarify if old_text supports regex or what happens if output_path is omitted.

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 action ('Find and replace text'), the target resource ('HWPX file'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the operation type. The mention of 'v0.2: only .hwpx is supported' adds precision.

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 provides a constraint (only .hwpx) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_hwp_cell_text or replace_hwp_image. The typical use case of find-and-replace is implied but not differentiated.

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