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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that prompts go ACTIVE immediately, that a first run is queued across every enabled model, that premium models cost up to 20x, that duplicate text+location pairs are silently skipped and surfaced in `errors`, and that the response includes org usage for pacing. These are consequential side effects an agent could not derive from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint alone.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then side effects, then edge-case handling, then the return value. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information; nothing is filler.

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 batch-mutating tool with billing impact and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors and even summarizes the response (`errors`, usage). It stops short of describing auth requirements or the full error/partial-failure semantics, which is a minor but real gap.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real value on top: the 1-25 batch bound and the duplicate text+location skip rule explain how the params combine in ways the schema does not. It does not add per-parameter detail beyond what the schema states, keeping it at a strong 4 rather than 5.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create 1-25 tracked prompts in a workspace') with an explicit batch bound. It also implicitly differentiates from the create_topic/create_tag siblings by stating those entities are auto-created by name when missing, so an agent can tell what this tool produces vs. the dedicated entity tools.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the billing/answer-run warnings hint at when to be cautious, and the returned usage data hints at batching/sequencing. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g., run_prompt, update_prompt) is given, leaving the agent to infer.

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