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

Annotations already signal a write/destructive operation, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the write-tier approval behavior, the operator_brief return value, and the instruction to always speak it rather than citing the Play by id. This is valuable behavioral disclosure that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, routing, and response expectations. It loses a point for minor redundancy: 'Speak operator_brief + deep_link; never id-alone' appears twice.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what the caller receives (operator_brief with summary/stage/next human action, plus deep_link) and what the caller must do afterward. Combined with the fully documented input schema and annotations, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, with each parameter already documented, including enum meanings. The description itself adds little parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States an explicit purpose: 'Create a Playbook for the company (growth_tactics — the Plays rail)'. It also distinguishes itself from Knowledge files, clearly separating it from sibling save_knowledge rather than just restating the tool name.

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?

Provides explicit routing: 'Playbook / reusable company loop → use this. SOP / guidelines / notes → save_knowledge.' It also gives timing guidance with 'Call it on the first clear ask; the card is the yes — do not re-ask in chat,' so when-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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