Playbook write

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true), the description adds that entries are deduped and credit-scored nightly, explaining why the tool is idempotent and providing expected behavior. This adds useful context beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every sentence provides essential information.

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 simplicity of the tool, an output schema, and annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage timing, and behavioral details (dedup, scoring). No gaps are apparent for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 the schema already provides clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds a concrete example for 'trigger' but does not significantly extend meaning beyond the schema. 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 uses specific verbs ('Store') and clearly identifies the resource ('strategy'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'playbook_recall' by describing the write operation and the retrieval counterpart.

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 implies when to use the tool ('AFTER it proves out in practice') and contrasts with 'playbook_recall' for retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for different scenarios.

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