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

Annotations say this is a mutating, idempotent operation, but they do not reveal the important side effect that activating a prompt automatically deactivates the currently active prompt of the same type and subtype. The description surfaces this behavior and frames is_active=true as a restore action, which is essential context.

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?

Two tightly crafted sentences: the first states the core action, the second provides behavioral nuance and the sibling alternative. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter state toggle with an output schema, this description is complete. It gives the purpose, the main side effect, and the alternative tool for text edits, so an agent has enough to invoke 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?

The schema covers only is_active's meaning, leaving prompt_id undocumented. The description compensates by explaining is_active=true restores a previous version and triggers automatic deactivation of same-type/subtype prompts. prompt_id remains self-explanatory as a UUID, but no additional semantic detail is provided for it.

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: 'Activate or deactivate a prompt by its ID.' It also names the sibling it is not, stating 'To change prompt text, use create_prompt instead,' so an agent can distinguish update_prompt from create_prompt.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: use is_active=true to restore a previous version, and use create_prompt when changing prompt text. The description also explains the automatic deactivation behavior, leaving little room for misuse.

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