create-runbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the action, but does not disclose what happens upon creation, required fields, whether the operation is synchronous, or what the response contains. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool's name, offering zero transparency into side effects or prerequisites.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though it does not contain filler or irrelevant content. It earns its place as a statement of purpose, but lacks depth.

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?

The tool creates a runbook, which is likely a complex object given the schema has an unconstrained object parameter. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least hint at what constitutes a valid runbook or what the response will be. It does neither, leaving significant gaps for a create operation.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'runbook' with a description 'Runbook object.' and allows additional properties. Schema description coverage is high (100%), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the schema's description is itself minimally informative, but the description does not contradict or expand upon it.

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 'Create a new runbook.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's action on the runbook entity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update-runbook, delete-runbook, and execute-runbook, which perform different operations. There is no ambiguity about the tool's core purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for creating new runbooks while update-runbook is for modifying existing ones, nor does it reference related tools. The usage context is only implied by the word 'create' and the resource name, with no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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