update_playbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the append behavior but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive (replaces the whole file by default), whether it requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise, two sentences with no waste. The key usage hint about append is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to grasp the primary decision point quickly.

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 the tool's mutation nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on default behavior (replacing the file), potential side effects, and any prerequisites. An agent would need to infer or risk incorrect usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the append parameter's purpose (add a section without replacing the whole file), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare boolean. However, it does not explain the content parameter's format or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 tool updates the personal playbook, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_playbook by implying a write operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides a usage hint for the append parameter, indicating when to use it (to add a section without replacing the whole file). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_playbook or other update tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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