update_playbook

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

Without any annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: playbooks are archived (never deleted) via enabled=false, edits target a draft (auto-created if draft_id omitted), and the tools array replaces the playbook's tools with the note that end_call/transfer_call belong to agent-level configuration. This provides comprehensive behavioral context beyond the input schema.

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 well-structured paragraph of about 100 words. It front-loads the main purpose and then systematically covers key aspects: draft workflow, archiving, router fallback restriction, and tool replacement. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.

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 (11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the edit workflow, draft lifecycle, archiving, and limitations. However, it does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., the draft_id or a success indication), which is a minor gap. Otherwise, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 meaningful context beyond schema descriptions: the archive/restore nuance for enabled, the draft workflow for draft_id, and the tools replacement behavior. While the schema already has detailed parameter descriptions, the description enriches understanding with workflow implications.

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 'Edit' and the resource 'one playbook (SOP) on a multi_agents agent', listing specific editable fields (prompt, intent, auth level, tools, archive/restore). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'publish_draft' and 'configure_playbooks' in context, making the tool's specific role clear.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool (to edit a playbook), provides a clear exclusion ('The router fallback cannot be archived — repoint it first via configure_playbooks'), and explains the draft workflow (omit draft_id to start new, use publish_draft to go live). This gives the agent complete guidance on proper usage vs. alternatives.

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