Run a Saved Luau Playbook by Name

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false, and the description reinforces this ('Safety: MUTATING; changes server-side persisted/session state'). It goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the load path, placeholder substitution, execution surface details (mcp.* calls, persistent VM, RPC budget, output capture, pre-flight), the return shapes, and failure handling guidance.

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 action, then layered detail; sentences carry distinct information. The metadata block (Phase/cost/idempotency/Requires/Produces/Verify) is dense boilerplate that slightly inflates length, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutating, no-output-schema, 6-param tool this is thorough: it names the return shape ({result, output} / {error, output}), the execution surface, prerequisites, verification tool (assert-state), and where to look on failure (tool-schema). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that `params` keys substitute ${param} placeholders in the source, that `persistent` defaults to true with the same semantics as script.persistent, and enumerates the full signature. Still, several params (timeoutMs, rpcBudget, threadContext) get no extra context beyond the schema.

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 + resource ('Run a Saved Luau Playbook by Name') and immediately clarifies scope: loads from a named path, substitutes placeholders, and executes through the same surface as the `script` tool. This lets an agent distinguish it from playbook-save/list/delete and from script/execute without opening a 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 concrete preconditions ('Requires: active-client, explicit-mutation-approval') and routes execution semantics to the sibling `script` tool. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over `script`/`execute` (i.e., only for reused, parameterized playbooks), so the exclusion is implied rather than stated.

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