Save a Named Reusable Luau Playbook

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

The description describes a mutating operation — 'Persist... to ~/.executor-mcp/playbooks/<name>.json' and 'Upserts on existing names' — while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. Persisting/upserting writes state, so the description directly contradicts the read-only annotation. This is an Annotation Contradiction.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the path/constraint are stated early, but the trailing 'Signature:' line duplicates the input schema and the Phase/cost/requires/produces metadata plus the boilerplate 'inspect tool-schema' sentence add bulk without helping invocation.

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?

It covers storage location, naming rules, upsert behavior, and placeholder handling, which is reasonably complete for a save tool. But with no output schema, the description should say what the call returns (e.g. confirmation/path), and it is silent on that; combined with the mislabeled read-only safety, it is only adequate.

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 all five parameters including the name pattern and ${param} placeholder usage. The description's 'source is stored verbatim; ${param} placeholders are replaced at run-time by playbook-run' adds cross-tool runtime semantics, but the Signature line merely restates the schema. 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 (Persist) and resource (named Luau snippet/playbook), names the exact storage path, and ties it to the sibling playbook-run for later re-execution. An agent can distinguish this from playbook-list/playbook-run/playbook-delete 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 clear context ('so it can be re-run later via playbook-run') and notes tags are for grouping related playbooks, which implies when to use it. However it never explicitly states when NOT to use it versus playbook-run or playbook-delete, so no exclusions are provided.

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