configure_playbooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains that edits land on a draft (auto-created if draft_id omitted) and that changes only go live after publish_draft. It also describes the injection of conversation guide into all playbooks. However, it does not detail side effects, error states, or whether the tool is destructive beyond the draft mechanism.

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, information-dense paragraph that effectively covers all major aspects: intent router, conversation guide, identity tools, and draft publishing. It is front-loaded but could potentially be broken into bullet points for even easier scanning. No wasted sentences.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects), the description covers the main use cases but lacks information about the return value (e.g., draft ID) and does not mention validation or error handling. Since there is no output schema, the description should address what the agent can expect as a response.

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 each parameter well. The description adds value by providing higher-level context, such as the purpose of each parameter group and the draft lifecycle. For example, it explains that conversation_guide is 'injected into EVERY playbook' and that auth tools are required based on auth levels.

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 defines the tool's purpose: configuring section-level Playbooks settings for a multi_agents agent, specifically the intent router, conversation guide, and shared identity tools. It distinguishes itself from related tools like publish_draft by noting that edits target a draft and require a separate publish step.

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 the tool (to configure playbook settings) and provides context about draft creation and publishing. It also notes requirements for auth tools based on playbook auth levels. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_playbooks or update_playbook, leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.

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