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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It states 'Update' implying mutation, but fails to disclose behavior on non-existent prompt_id, whether updates are partial or full, idempotency, or any side effects.

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?

Single sentence with no fluff, achieving conciseness. However, it omits some parameters, so it is not both concise and complete. Could benefit from listing all optional fields.

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?

Despite having an output schema (unseen), the description is incomplete: it covers only 4 of 7 parameters, offers no usage context, and lacks behavioral details. Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no annotations), more information is needed.

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%. Description adds meaning for only 4 of 7 parameters (content, system instruction, model, display name) by labeling them as 'new', but omits project_id and location_id entirely. Does not explain format, constraints, or relationships between parameters.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Update' and resource 'a prompt', listing several updatable fields (content, system instruction, model, display name). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_prompt and delete_prompt. However, it omits optional parameters project_id and location_id, which could cause confusion.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., prompt must exist) or that it modifies an existing prompt rather than creating a new one.

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