browser_playbook_save

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

The description mentions validation of frontmatter and required sections, which is a behavioral trait not implied by the tool name alone. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. But it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or side effects.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides a key usage guideline. Every sentence is necessary.

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 complexity of a playbook save tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is brief. It does not explain the structure of frontmatter or required sections, nor does it describe the optional workflow parameter. More detail would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter's description is already given. The description adds value by stating that frontmatter and required sections are validated, which is not in the schema. This provides context beyond the schema's field 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 clearly states the tool's verb (create or update) and resource (playbook). It also distinguishes it from the sibling tool browser_playbook_propose_update by specifying its purpose for trace-driven authoring.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use browser_playbook_propose_update for trace-driven authoring, providing a clear alternative. However, it does not elaborate on when to avoid using this tool or prerequisites.

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