configure_playbooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that edits land on a draft and that publish_draft is required to go live. It also mentions that weak_auth_tools and strong_auth_tools replace shared tools. However, it does not describe what happens if optional parameters are omitted (e.g., whether existing settings remain unchanged), nor does it disclose any destructive actions or side effects.

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 that is front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists components. It is clear and every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points. No wasted words.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the purpose of each parameter group and the draft mechanism. However, it does not describe the return value or response upon success, nor does it mention prerequisites like the agent existing. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 each parameter has a description. The tool description adds meaning by grouping parameters into three areas (intent router, conversation guide, identity tools) and explaining their role. It also clarifies that weak_auth_tools 'REPLACES' shared tools, a detail not in the schema. This adds value 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Configure' and the resource 'section-level Playbooks settings of a multi_agents agent'. It explicitly lists the three areas: intent router, conversation guide, and shared identity tools. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that the conversation guide is defined once here, not per-SOP, which is a key differentiator from tools like add_playbooks or update_playbook.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to configure playbooks settings for an agent, specifically the intent router, conversation guide, and auth tools. It mentions that edits land on a draft and that publish_draft is needed to go live. However, it lacks explicit statements about when not to use this tool or direct comparisons with alternatives like add_playbooks, though the context is sufficient.

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