set_hwp_field_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the XML-level insertion but lacks clarity on side effects (e.g., overwrite vs. append), error handling (e.g., field not found), and whether output_path allows in-place modification.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words.

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 tool's write nature and absence of output schema, the description should cover prerequisites (referenced list_hwp_fields), but misses error cases, behavior when field is missing, and the effect of output path omission. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage, the description merely lists parameter names (file_path, name, value, output_path) and labels one as optional. It does not explain their types, constraints, or formats, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool sets a Hancom field value by name in an .hwpx file, describing the mechanism of writing between XML tags. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_hwp_field_value and fill_hwp_template.

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 directs users to use list_hwp_fields first to discover field names, providing a prerequisite action. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use this tool or mention sibling alternatives beyond the implied distinction.

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