Save a playbook

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

Annotations already signal that this is not read-only and not idempotent, but the description adds useful context beyond that: the data lands in the same Playbooks library the web app uses, and the operation is free. It does not cover duplicate-vs-update behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states what is saved, why, where it lands, and what it is not. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler or tautology.

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?

Given a rich schema, no output schema, and a save operation, the description covers the purpose, use cases, destination, and sibling distinctions well. The main gap is what happens on repeated saves with the same name (duplicate creation vs update), but the overall orientation is strong.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all seven parameters. The description reinforces the high-level categories (hooks, angles, formats, plays) but adds little beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('reusable PLAYBOOK'), and enumerates exactly what a playbook contains: hooks, angles, formats, and concrete plays. It also explicitly differentiates itself from save_skill and the swipefile, so an agent can identify this tool among many siblings.

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?

It gives concrete triggers for use: after competitor_teardown or mine_angles, or to bank a repeatable creative. It also names alternatives and explains the distinction ('Distinct from save_skill... and from the swipefile'), giving the agent clear routing guidance.

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