Load a playbook

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantive context beyond that: the returned artifact is a guide containing non-obvious traps, the tool is meant to be invoked first in a workflow, and the page-builder warning (Elementor, Divi, Beaver Builder, Bricks, Breakdance) explains a concrete failure mode the playbook addresses. This workflow and domain context goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: definition of the resource, invocation guidance, and a concrete domain warning. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the length is appropriately sized for a two-parameter read-only tool.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and safety already declared in annotations, the description covers purpose, when to call, what is returned conceptually, and a critical domain caveat. The main gap is undefined edge-case behavior — what happens when no matching skill exists or when both name and query are supplied — which an agent would need for reliable fallback.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters, placing this at the baseline of 3. The description modestly reinforces the query parameter's intent ('describe what you are about to do and the matching skill is returned') but adds no new syntax, precedence, or combination rules beyond what the schema provides.

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 action — 'Load the playbook for the task at hand' — and defines the resource as a focused guide covering how to do a particular kind of WordPress work correctly, including traps not obvious from the API. This retrieval semantics clearly distinguishes it from sibling skill-management tools like save_skill, delete_skill, and list_skills.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this FIRST when starting any substantive task: describe what you are about to do and the matching skill is returned.' This establishes both the trigger condition and the invocation pattern. It stops short of a 5 because it does not name alternatives (e.g., list_skills for browsing) or state when not to use it.

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