playbook_add

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses upsert semantics and that unknown rule IDs cause errors, but it omits permissions, whether existing rule links are replaced, atomicity, destructive effects, and response behavior.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to gaps covered by other dimensions.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain required fields, optional fields, side effects, or what happens to existing rule links during an upsert.

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 0%, so the description should compensate but does not. It hints that rule_ids refers to rule links, but id, name, test, skill, description, and the replacement/null behavior of rule_ids remain unexplained.

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?

"Upsert a playbook and its rule links" uses a specific verb and resource, making the create-or-update intent clear. It distinguishes the tool from playbook_list, playbook_get, and playbook_remove by operation, though it does not explicitly mention those 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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It only states a validation constraint (unknown rule IDs are errors), leaving the agent to infer that this is the tool for adding or updating playbooks rather than listing, getting, or removing them.

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