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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true), but the description adds real context they cannot convey: quota is consumed by runs, active prompts are dispatched daily to third-party engines like ChatGPT/Gemini/Perplexity, and inactive prompts do not run. It does not cover duplicate-prompt behavior or what is returned on success.

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?

Short and front-loaded enough to be usable, but the plan-quota constraint is stated twice ('uses plan quota' / 'Subject to the organization's plan quota'), and the opening sentence about active prompts is slightly out of order relative to the actual action being described.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers the side effects (scheduling, quota, third-party dispatch) that the schema and annotations do not. It stops short of indicating the created prompt's identifier or error conditions, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema with types and constraints (max 2000 characters, numeric monitor id). The description only echoes is_active semantics ('when is_active is true'), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

'Create a new prompt for a monitor' gives a specific verb and resource, and the surrounding text ties the object to a monitor, plan quota, and the monitor's configured AI platforms. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with update-prompt-tool or any sibling.

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?

It says when the created prompt will actually fire (is_active true, on the monitor's schedule), which implies when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to reach for this versus update-prompt-tool or how it relates to the monitor lifecycle, so usage is only implied.

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