.prompts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a prompt but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., returns a prompt ID). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 is a mutation (create) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a prompt object or ID), error conditions, or behavioral traits like side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 the schema fully documents all 4 parameters (title, description, prompt, as_tool). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying they relate to creating a prompt. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new prompt') and the target ('to your personal collection'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete-prompt' or 'update-prompt' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list-prompts' beyond the verb, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-prompt' or 'list-prompts'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., if a prompt collection must exist) or exclusions (e.g., when not to create duplicates). This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

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

The annotations include destructiveHint: true, which already indicates this is a destructive operation. The description adds value by confirming it deletes 'an existing prompt,' reinforcing the permanence implied by the annotation. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., if deletion is irreversible) or error conditions, though annotations cover the core safety aspect.

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 brief but poorly structured: 'Delete an existing prompt with new information' is confusing and contains redundant or unclear phrasing ('with new information'). It fails to be front-loaded with clear intent, and the extra words do not add value, making it inefficient.

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's destructive nature (annotations cover this), single parameter with full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks completeness in explaining the deletion process (e.g., confirmation, effects) and does not fully compensate for the absence of output details, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaningful information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 'Delete an existing prompt' which clearly indicates the action (delete) and resource (prompt), but the phrase 'with new information' is confusing and potentially misleading. It distinguishes from siblings like create-prompt and update-prompt by specifying deletion, though the extra wording reduces clarity.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing prompt ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like list-prompts or update-prompt, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

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

The description doesn't add behavioral traits beyond the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true', which already indicates it's a safe read operation. It lacks details like pagination, sorting, or what 'available' entails (e.g., permissions, scope). No contradiction with annotations exists, but minimal value is added.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without extra words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action.

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's low complexity (0 parameters, read-only), no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on what 'available' means and doesn't explain return values, leaving gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't add or compensate for any gaps, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't mislead or omit necessary info.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating prompts), or comparisons to siblings like 'create-prompt' for adding new prompts. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, and what 'new information' entails, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing prompt'), specifying it's for modification rather than creation. It distinguishes from 'create-prompt' by focusing on existing prompts, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'delete-prompt' or 'list-prompts' beyond the update action.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-prompt' or 'delete-prompt'. The description implies it's for modifying existing prompts but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing the prompt ID) or contextual constraints, leaving usage unclear.

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