Run Playbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it executes and collapses multiple tool calls. It lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if it's destructive), error handling, or performance implications like rate limits, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly conveys the core functionality without any wasted words, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 executing multi-step playbooks, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a playbook is, expected outcomes, error cases, or integration with other tools, leaving critical context missing for effective use.

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%, so the schema documents parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of playbook names or argument structures, but doesn't contradict it, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('execute') and resource ('multi-step playbook'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it collapses multiple tool calls into one invocation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'gateway_invoke' which might also execute something, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gateway_invoke' or other siblings. The description implies it's for multi-step operations but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for usage.

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