Update Playbook

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

Discloses that only provided fields are changed and steps are unaffected, which are key behavioral traits. However, does not mention validation rules like slug uniqueness (present in schema) or any side effects. Without annotations, this is acceptable but slightly incomplete.

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?

Two concise sentences effectively communicate purpose, scope, and alternative. Front-loads the action and resource, no redundancy.

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?

Covers essential aspects: what fields can be updated, partial update behavior, and separation from step updates. Lacks mention of return value (no output schema) but is sufficient for a simple mutation 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% with good parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about partial updates but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'playbook', specifies the updatable fields (name, slug, description), and distinguishes from sibling tool 'update_playbook_step' by noting steps are not affected.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (to update name/slug/description) and when not to (for steps, use update_playbook_step). Also clarifies that only provided fields are changed, guiding partial updates.

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