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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently notes the write-tier nature and approval flow: 'first use may require a manager's approval; a from-now-on approval makes future calls seamless, a just-once approval re-asks next time.' It also clarifies the operational scope (company-scoped, Plays rail). While it does not detail side effects like idempotency or return values, the explicit approval mechanism is valuable behavioral context beyond the bare 'create' action.

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 and well-structured: a single purpose sentence, a routing directive, and an approval note. It front-loads the essential purpose and usage, with every sentence earning its place. There is no redundant content; the routing and approval notes are additive and directly useful.

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?

For a creation tool with 8 parameters and all required fields clearly described in the schema, the description provides the necessary usage context (when to use vs. save_knowledge) and the write-tier approval behavior. It does not explain potential default values (e.g., status defaults) or behavior on duplicates, but these are minor gaps given the schema coverage and the explicit routing. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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?

The schema already describes all 8 parameters with 100% coverage, including enums and detailed descriptions (e.g., category meanings, linked_kr_id validation). The description adds no additional parameter-level nuance—it only restates the 'company' scope that is already in the schema. Since the schema carries the full weight, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Playbook for the company (growth_tactics — the Plays rail).' It explicitly contrasts with Knowledge files ('not a Knowledge file') and names the sibling save_knowledge, distinguishing this tool from the nearest alternative. This makes its purpose unambiguous and readily differentiated from siblings.

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?

Explicit usage direction is provided: 'Use when the operator wants a reusable runnable loop or playbook — not a Knowledge file.' It further gives a clear routing rule: 'Playbook / reusable company loop → use this. SOP / guidelines / notes → save_knowledge.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and when to choose the alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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