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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds per-action prerequisites, which is useful, but says nothing about irreversibility of deletion, permissions/auth needs, or side effects beyond what the annotations imply.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by a clean action-by-action breakdown; each line earns its place. The Args block is somewhat rote where it restates the action modes, but overall it is tight and scannable.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 14% schema coverage, the description supplies enough per-action parameter guidance to invoke it correctly. It omits any indication of the return payload, but with no output schema that is a minor gap.

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 only 14% (only user_intent is documented in the schema), so the description carries most of the burden and does so well, mapping six of seven params to concrete meaning and tying action enum values to their required inputs. Active and intent are only briefly glossed, but the compensation for the coverage gap is strong.

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?

States specific verbs (Create, update, delete) and a precise resource (a tracked prompt, clarified as a search query), which lets an agent distinguish it from read siblings like list_prompts and suggest_prompts. It does not explicitly differentiate from bulk_manage_prompts, so the single-vs-bulk boundary is left to inference.

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 routes the agent by action, stating the required params for each mode (create needs brand_id and text; update/delete need prompt_id). There is no mention of when to prefer this over bulk_manage_prompts or suggest_prompts, so alternatives are not covered.

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