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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the call is free ('Spends nothing') and it returns a link for review, so the agent knows this is a non-executing, non-billable staging step. It does not say whether re-loading duplicates existing entries, what permissions are needed, or how the loaded prompts persist in the account, which matters for a write-shaped tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the cost disclaimer and return value following. 'Returns a link to show them' is slightly elliptical about what the link points to, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the return value at a high level (a link), and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. Gaps remain around re-load behavior, persistence semantics, and limits beyond the schema's 'up to 40 prompts', which an agent would need before calling a mutating load tool.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, including per-field notes for file, name, cases, model, checks, prompt, and system, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'prompts and their examples' and adds no meaning beyond what the nested schema already documents.

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 verb 'load' plus the resource 'prompts and their examples' is specific, and 'into the account' marks it as a staging/upload operation rather than an execution one, which separates it from run_loaded_prompt and test_prompt. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'for the person to review and run' implies this tool stages prompts for human review instead of executing them, and 'Spends nothing' hints that costlier execution tools exist. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as test_prompt or run_loaded_prompt, leaving the agent to infer the workflow position.

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