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.