select_playbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions 'replaceable' and 'PROGRESSIVE/non-normative', but does not say whether selection mutates state, replaces an existing playbook, requires permissions, or can be undone—leaving core behavioral effects unexplained.

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?

One compact sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. The second clause is terse but adds a small behavioral qualifier; overall there is no padding, though the all-caps qualifier is cryptic rather than clarifying.

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?

For a 5-parameter selection tool with no annotations and no structured parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. An output schema may cover return values, but prerequisites, side effects, and parameter roles are left entirely to inference.

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 0% for 5 parameters, and the description explains none of them. It alludes to 'Playbook' and 'WorkIdentity' but does not map work_ref, playbook_id, actor_id, reason, or turn_id to meaning, formats, or required relationships.

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?

States a specific verb ('Select') and a distinct resource ('procedural Playbook') scoped to a WorkIdentity. Sibling differentiation is implied by contrast with register_playbook, but not made explicit, and the phrasing is domain jargon rather than plain language.

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?

No when-to-use condition, prerequisites, or alternative-tool routing is given. The clause 'selection is PROGRESSIVE/non-normative' hints at a mode of selection but does not tell an agent when to choose this over register_playbook or other workflow tools.

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