run_playbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'execute', which hints at a mutation but does not disclose side effects, whether it creates a playbook run, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. The example payload gives structural clues but not behavioral outcomes.

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 brief in words but contains a large JSON example that dominates the entry, making it less scannable. The phrase 'Variables: input.' is redundant with the schema. The example is useful but could be formatted more compactly or explained with a few field notes. Overall, it is not overly long, but not optimally structured.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns, what side effects occur, and any constraints. It provides neither. It also does not reference related tools like playbook_run or explain how this action is recorded. The complex nested input is documented, but the surrounding context is missing.

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 only describes 'input' as 'GraphQL: RunPlaybookInput!', which is minimally informative. The description compensates by providing a detailed example of the expected input structure, including nested fields like integrationIds and playbookVariables, adding practical meaning. However, it omits any explanation of the optional customer_slug parameter.

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: 'Execute a predefined playbook' with the qualifier 'Respond capability'. This makes the primary intent clear and distinguishes it from query-style siblings like playbook_run or playbook_runs, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage by saying 'Execute', but it does not mention when a user should prefer this over related playbook tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no context on conditions, such as needing specific permissions or a prior playbook definition.

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