add_playbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that each playbook is stored as an individual file, is retrievable via trigger keywords, and that similar-title handling includes a bypass flag and deduplication guidance. It does not mention permissions, overwriting behavior, or other side effects, but the core write behavior and uniqueness constraints are clearly described.

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 well-structured: purpose first, storage model second, then parameter explanations. It is bilingual, which adds length and some redundancy, but each section carries meaningful content and the core information is front-loaded.

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 an 18-parameter write tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers the main usage, storage model, and deduplication behavior well. However, six schema parameters are left unexplained, including non-obvious ones like scope_type and user_confirmed, which could lead an agent to make incorrect calls or omit important context. The presence of an output schema reduces concern about return-value documentation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage across 18 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does so for 12 parameters, adding valuable semantics such as the steps_json element structure (order/action/detail), required_tools_json's no-local-paths rule, and allow_similar_new's nuanced bypass condition. Six parameters (run_id, scope_type, source_agent, project_folder, user_confirmed, last_validated_at) remain undocumented, though some are partially inferable from their names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Record an operational playbook — a structured multi-step procedure.' It also gives concrete use cases (publishing to a registry, app deployment) and describes the storage/retrieval model, which helps distinguish it from generic memory or lesson tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clearly says when to use the tool: after completing a multi-step operational process, to preserve steps and experience for future reuse. It does not, however, state when not to use it or explicitly compare it with sibling tools like memory_store, add_lesson, or add_decision.

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