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

Annotations cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, and the description adds the non-obvious traits they don't: billable-run side effect on reactivation, full-replacement semantics for tags (names auto-created, numbers must be existing IDs), and topicId:null detachment. Nothing here contradicts idempotentHint=true or destructiveHint=false.

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?

Three dense sentences with the editable-field list front-loaded, followed by the two highest-risk behaviors. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or boilerplate.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important side effects and parameter edge cases well. The only gap is that it says nothing about what a successful update returns or whether all fields are applied atomically.

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 every parameter is already documented, and most of the description's parameter detail (tag replacement, null detach, created-if-missing) restates it. The added value is limited to the cost note attached to status='active', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Update a prompt') and enumerates the exact editable surface (text, status, location, tags, topic), which sharply separates it from the create/delete/run prompt siblings. An agent can tell immediately this is the partial-modification tool rather than a create or delete.

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?

It gives a concrete usage condition with consequences: reactivating a non-active prompt consumes a slot and queues a billable run, so an agent knows when the call is expensive. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., run_prompt for on-demand runs) or stating when not to use this tool.

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