upsert_playbook_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only labels the tool as a 'mutation,' implying a write operation, but does not explain side effects, idempotency, whether it requires an existing record, what happens to omitted fields, or any permissions needed. The example variables show a structure but not behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 very short, which is concise, but the leading phrase 'Playbooks · mutation upsertPlaybookMetadata' merely restates the tool name and wastes the front-loaded position. The example block is useful but not explained. It is not poorly sized, but the structure does not maximize the limited space.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the operation is a mutation. The description fails to explain what the mutation does, what the response looks like, or any context such as required fields, validation rules, or relationships to other playbook entities. For an upsert operation, this is critically incomplete—an agent cannot understand the effects or prerequisites.

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%, but the schema's description for 'input' is merely a GraphQL type reference. The description adds value by providing an example of the input object's structure (id, name, description, enabled, type), which helps agents understand what fields to populate. The customer_slug parameter is well-described in the schema itself. Thus, the description compensates beyond the baseline.

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 is essentially a tautology of the tool name: 'Playbooks · mutation upsertPlaybookMetadata.' It does not clearly state that the tool creates or updates playbook metadata in plain language. The example variable block hints at the purpose (fields like name, description, enabled, type), but the description itself lacks a specific verb+resource statement, making it hard to distinguish from sibling tools like upsert_customer_playbook.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as playbooks, upsert_customer_playbook, or run_playbook. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned. The category 'Playbooks' is too vague to serve as a usage signal.

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