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.