create_runbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the runbook starts in draft status and that the tool returns the runbook ID – important side effects and outputs. It does not go into permissions or side effects beyond creation, but for a simple create operation it provides adequate behavioral insight.

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 structured with a clear lead sentence, return value note, and an Args block that efficiently documents each parameter. There is no fluff or repetition; every line earns its place. The format is easily scannable for an agent.

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 has an output schema, so the description need not detail return format beyond mentioning the runbook ID, which it does. It covers creation status and all parameters. It lacks explicit notes on error conditions (e.g., duplicate name) but these are not essential given the simplicity of the operation and the presence of structured schemas.

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 does so thoroughly, explaining each parameter with examples ('Short, descriptive name', 'Markdown description of what this runbook does and when to use it', 'Optional list of tags for categorisation'). This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the basic types and defaults in 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Create'), the resource ('runbook'), and the status ('draft status'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_runbook, promote_runbook, and deprecate_runbook. It immediately tells the agent what the tool does and what it returns.

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 implies usage: create a new runbook. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but its scope is unambiguous within the sibling set (all other runbook tools target different operations). The context is clear enough that an agent will know when to use it, though no proactive guidance about not using it for updates or promotions is provided.

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