update-runbook

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states 'Update an existing runbook.' It does not mention partial vs full update semantics, permission requirements, side effects, or return values, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It lacks structure and does not front-load important context, making it minimally acceptable but not well-rounded.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain how the updates object should be formatted or what the response will be, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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%. The description fails to explain the two required parameters, especially the 'updates' object which has additionalProperties and no defined structure. This is a critical gap.

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 an existing runbook, using the verb 'Update' and resource 'runbook'. The word 'existing' distinguishes it from create-runbook, though it doesn't elaborate on what aspects can be updated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create-runbook or delete-runbook. There is no context about prerequisites or scenarios for updating a runbook.

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