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

The description goes beyond the false annotation flags by disclosing the key side effect: the new prompt is automatically set active and the previously active prompt of the same type/subtype is deactivated. It does not cover secondary details such as idempotency or what happens to the deactivated version, but the primary behavioral risk is clearly stated.

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 tight sentences front-load the action, disclose the important side effect, and end with an explicit usage cue. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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?

Core behavior, side effects, and primary use case are all covered, and the output schema removes the need to describe return values. The main gap is the unresolved relationship with the sibling update_prompt, which matters for an agent choosing between the two tools.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema already explains type, subtype, and interface_type, including conditional requirements. The description adds only marginal parameter context ('prompt text' and the relevance of type/subtype), so it meets the baseline but does not compensate for the undocumented prompt parameter.

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 names a specific action ('Create a new prompt version') and target resource ('prompt for the authenticated application'), and it explains the activation/deactivation behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling update_prompt, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Use this whenever you want to change prompt text' is an explicit usage directive with clear context. However, it provides no when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of update_prompt as an alternative, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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