run_security_playbook

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

The description includes a '[Write]' tag implying mutation, consistent with readOnlyHint=false. However, it fails to disclose behavioral specifics such as side effects, changes to records, external interactions, or response behavior, beyond what annotations already indicate.

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 front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. The '[Write]' tag is somewhat redundant but does not significantly detract from conciseness.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, optional nested object) and limited annotations, the description lacks critical return value information and does not explain what constitutes success or failure. More detail on output or behavioral outcomes would be needed for completeness.

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. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema for the parameters, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 executes a security response playbook on an incident, with specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'trigger_agentic_playbook', which may have similar functionality.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites or context for invocation.

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