add_runbook

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds only that the runbook is plain text; it does not disclose what happens on repeated calls, whether attaching can overwrite an existing runbook, or what permissions are required.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for the sentence itself, even though more content is needed elsewhere.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is too sparse. It leaves unresolved how runbook_id and title are used, whether attachment replaces existing data, and what a successful call returns.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented required parameters. It clarifies that "steps" are plain-text and that the runbook is attached to a service, but says nothing about runbook_id or title.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: "Attach a runbook" to a service, and clarifies that the runbook consists of plain-text steps. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings, but its purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand.

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?

It states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, or which sibling tools are alternatives. The agent must infer usage entirely from the single sentence.

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