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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely valuable behavioral fact — that a new revision is created rather than the old one overwritten — but omits concurrency behavior (expectedVersion), failure modes on version mismatch, permission requirements, and whether the patch merges with or replaces existing prompt fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the most important trait (non-destructive revisioning) comes first. The trailing '§17' reference is opaque to an agent and is the only wasted token.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and a nested 13-field patch object with additionalProperties=false, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell from the description how partial patches are applied, what happens on a stale expectedVersion, or what a successful call returns.

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 0% across four required parameters, including a nested patch object with thirteen properties, so the description should compensate but does not. 'expectedVersion' — clearly an optimistic-concurrency guard — and the merge semantics of 'patch' are left completely unexplained, meaning the only added meaning is the versioning note.

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 a specific verb and resource (revise a prompt) and adds a real disambiguator — that the edit produces a new revision instead of mutating in place. It does not, however, separate itself from nearby siblings such as prompt.draft or prompt.list_revisions, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer prompt.update over prompt.draft, or how prompt.list_revisions relates, and no precondition (such as needing an existing promptId or matching version) is stated. Usage is only implied by the word 'revise'.

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