Save a playbook

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, no idempotentHint), so the description carries load. It adds that the playbook lands in the same library the web app lists, runs and manages, and it notes 'Free.' at the end. It doesn't mention overwrite behavior or error cases, but it provides enough behavioral context beyond the empty 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and destination. The sibling distinctions and the 'Free.' note are concise and each sentence adds value. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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 tool with 7 params (some nested), no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what to save, when to use it, how it differs from alternatives, where it lands, parameter semantics, and cost. Nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains hooks are 'opening hooks worth reusing, verbatim', plays are 'the concrete plays to run ({title, detail}) — the actionable half', and angles are 'persuasion angles'. It also clarifies formats with examples. This makes parameters more actionable without repeating schema text.

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 clearly states the verb 'Save' and the resource 'PLAYBOOK', then explains what a playbook is and explicitly differentiates it from save_skill and the swipefile. It also names the landing library, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it to keep what a competitor_teardown or mine_angles just found, or to bank a creative you want to repeat.' It also names the alternatives (save_skill, swipefile) and describes where the data lands, which effectively covers when not to use this tool.

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