dosai_update_promptReplace the assistant's system prompt. This changes how the bot answers real clients immediately, so read the current prompt first and preserve what should stay. Requires admin or owner role and a key with write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project id, as returned by dosai_list_projects. | |
| system_prompt | Yes | The complete new prompt. It replaces the old one, it is not appended. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds crucial behavioral context: the update takes effect immediately on production behavior, and users must preserve parts of the current prompt intentionally. It also discloses permission requirements, which are not in the schema or annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by critical caveats and requirements. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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?
The description adequately covers purpose, usage, permissions, and immediate impact. Since there is no output schema, it does not explain the response format, but for an update tool that is not a major gap. The caution to read first is especially valuable given the mutation.
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 already documents both parameters completely (100% coverage) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds context about preserving content but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?
The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Replace the assistant's system prompt.' It also explains the real-world effect ('changes how the bot answers real clients immediately'), which clearly differentiates this update tool from read-oriented siblings like dosai_get_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?
The description provides clear context on how to use the tool: read the current prompt first and preserve what should stay. It also states prerequisites: 'Requires admin or owner role and a key with write scope.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the instruction to read first effectively points to dosai_get_prompt.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.