update_playbook

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: playbooks are archived (not deleted) to preserve call history, edits go to a draft layer, and replacing tools drops legacy end_call/transfer_call tools. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits.

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 two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, key behaviors, and limitations with no wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 (11 parameters, no output schema), the description provides essential operational context (draft workflow, archiving, tool replacement) that helps the agent use the tool correctly. It is fairly complete, though it could mention expected return behavior.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds context beyond schema, such as the draft creation when branch_id is omitted (though it inconsistently calls it 'draft_id'), the tool replacement behavior, and the router fallback restriction. This adds value.

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 'Edit one playbook (SOP) on a multi_agents agent' and lists specific editable aspects (prompt, intent, auth level, tools, enabled). This distinguishes it from siblings like configure_playbooks and add_playbooks, which serve different purposes.

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 explicit guidance on when and how to use the tool, including the draft/publish workflow, the fact that router fallback cannot be archived (directing to configure_playbooks), and that tools are replaced. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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