Save a playbook

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

Annotations already declare the write operation is non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that the playbook lands in the same Playbooks library shown in the web app, that it is reusable, and that it is free — useful post-save and cost context. It stops short of describing failure modes or auth needs, but the annotation bar is lower here.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and content, followed by usage, landing location, sibling distinctions, and cost. Every sentence earns its place, though the opening list is slightly dense and the overall description is longer than strictly necessary.

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 7-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing context: what a playbook is, when to save one, where it goes, how it differs from siblings, and that it is free. No output schema exists, but the description tells the agent what happens after saving, which is sufficient.

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 schema already documents every parameter thoroughly, including hooks, plays, angles, and formats. The description adds conceptual framing by grouping these as the elements of a playbook, but it does not add syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb (save) and resource (playbook), then defines the content in concrete terms: hooks, angles, formats, and plays. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings save_skill and the swipefile, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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?

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 the condition that separates them, leaving nothing to inference.

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