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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that an existing run history forces a new DRAFT version (current=false) instead of in-place mutation, and that publishing is a separate gated step. It omits permissions/auth requirements and says nothing about what happens to unmentioned fields, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and branching logic. The rationale clause about edits not going live earns its place by explaining the design intent, though the final sentence is slightly redundant with the opening branch.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description answers the most important behavioral question (draft vs in-place) but leaves the 6 parameters entirely undocumented and gives no hint about the response shape. Adequate for the core behavior, incomplete for invocation.

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% across 6 parameters, and the description names none of them (name, template, llm_model, tag_names, description) or explains the required id. The description compensates only implicitly by implying editable content fields; the bulk of parameter meaning is left undocumented.

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 (Update) and resource (a prompt), then immediately differentiates the outcome from sibling behavior: draft-version creation vs in-place edit. An agent can distinguish this from prompts_publish and prompts_create without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (prompts_publish) and the condition that routes to it, plus the runs/no-runs branch that governs in-place vs draft behavior. It does not address the create-vs-update boundary with prompts_create, so not a full 5, but the publish routing is clear.

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