upsert_customer_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, permissions, overwrite semantics, or any other behavioral aspects. The example variables hint at fields but not at what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It reads like a raw code comment or snippet, lacking structured explanation. The example is useful but the overall presentation is cryptic and not well-structured for an AI agent.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the description is far too minimal. It does not explain return values, required permissions, side effects, or when to use it. The presence of many related sibling tools further highlights the need for contextual guidance, which is entirely absent.

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 descriptions for the two parameters are minimal (input is just a GraphQL type, customer_slug provides a header override explanation). The description adds an example input object showing fields like id, note, and rqAllowedToRun, which provides some structural insight beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, this meets the baseline 3, but the description does not explain the meaning or usage of these fields.

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 essentially repeats the mutation name ('upsertCustomerPlaybook') and labels it as a GraphQL mutation, without explaining what the tool does in plain language. 'Upsert' suggests create-or-update, but the resource and effect are not clarified, making it vague and not distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'upsert_playbook_metadata'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only provides a mutation name and example variables, with no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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