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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond annotations: it preserves user-authored passages verbatim, snapshots the previous version to history, never overwrites hand-edited offerContext, is non-idempotent, and may take several seconds. This gives an agent a strong mental model of the tool's side effects and safeguards.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then explains update semantics, preservation guarantees, non-idempotence, latency, and the required follow-up. Each sentence adds meaningful information without unnecessary padding.

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 has one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations indicating a write operation, the description covers all needed operational context: inputs, mutation behavior, versioning, latency, and how to retrieve the updated playbook. The explicit follow-up instruction removes ambiguity about the result.

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?

The single optional parameter workspaceId is already fully covered in the schema with 'Defaults to the API key's workspace,' so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description implicitly reinforces the workspace context but provides no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Trigger AI regeneration') applied to a specific resource ('the workspace playbook') and clarifies it updates an existing playbook rather than discarding it. It clearly distinguishes the tool from related playbook operations like campaignstack_list_playbook_versions and campaignstack_revert_playbook by referencing them for history management.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: regenerate the playbook from current campaigns, ICPs, personas, and company context. It provides post-conditions and references follow-up tools, but it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives like campaignstack_propose_playbook_change or state when not to use it.

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