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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so mutation semantics are known. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: there is no prompt slot limit, and omitting sourceAiSetupId falls back to the active setup. It says nothing about duplicate-name behavior, validation failures, or what the call returns.

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, purpose front-loaded, with the setup fallback placed last. "There is no prompt slot limit" earns its place as a planning constraint, though no sentence is wasted or padded.

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 tool with 18 parameters, a nested followUp object, three enums and no output schema, a three-sentence description leaves gaps: the agent is not told what is returned (e.g. the new prompt ID) or how to handle an existing name. The rich schema compensates for most parameter detail, but the create-and-return flow is under-described.

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 78%, well above the 50% threshold, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including the legacy-vs-live content/context split and follow-up step modes. The description only restates the sourceAiSetupId default, adding little beyond structured data; 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?

Sentence one states a specific verb and resource ("Create a new LinkedNav prompt template"), which is clearly distinct from update_prompt, delete_prompt and get_prompt in the sibling list. It lacks any explicit differentiation sentence naming those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description gives one conditional usage rule: when sourceAiSetupId is omitted the active setup is used. It does not say when to call create_prompt versus update_prompt, whether an AI setup must exist first, or what happens if a prompt with the same name already exists.

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