add_playbooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: edits land on a draft (auto-created if omitted), need publish_draft to go live, uniqueness constraints (case-insensitive, archived included), fallback behavior, and separation of identity tools via configure_playbooks.

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 paragraph but efficiently covers all key points—action, draft workflow, uniqueness, fallback, and separation from configure_playbooks. It could be slightly more structured, but it is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 complexity (nested playbooks with many properties), the description is comprehensive: it explains the draft system, uniqueness, fallback, and identity tool separation. It does not explicitly state the return value, but given no output schema, this is acceptable. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the draft mechanism, uniqueness rules, router fallback, and the purpose of playbooks and their components, making it easier for an agent to understand parameter relationships.

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 adds playbooks to a multi_agents agent, defines what a playbook consists of (intent, prompt, tools, auth), and distinguishes from siblings like 'configure_playbooks' and 'update_playbook' by mentioning draft workflow and separate identity tools.

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 explains when to use (to add playbooks), how to handle drafts (omit draft_id for new, pass for subsequent), and that changes go live via publish_draft. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but sibling context and details like 'first enabled becomes router fallback' provide sufficient guidance.

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