generate_prompts

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

Description discloses that this generates prompts using Claude Haiku, requires an API key, and replaces active prompts while preserving historical run data. Annotations note readOnlyHint=false (mutation) which the description aligns with by stating prompts are replaced. Adds the API-key requirement and data-preservation behavior beyond 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?

Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core action. Each clause earns its place, though it could arguably be trimmed slightly. No wasted words.

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?

Given an output schema exists (return values don't need explanation), 100% schema coverage, and clear annotations (mutation confirmed), the description fully covers prerequisites, effects, data safety, and usage context. Complete for a moderately complex mutation tool.

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 100% for both parameters. The description reinforces brand_id as the target and the count's default/range appears in schema. The description doesn't add heavy param detail but schema fully covers it, so baseline 3-4 is appropriate given high coverage.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Regenerate the buyer-intent prompt set for a tracked brand') with clear scope and the model used. Distinguishes from siblings: siblings cover visibility, gaps, competitors, and brand tracking, while this uniquely handles prompt generation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (user wants better/more prompts, upgrade from starter prompts after adding Anthropic key) and what prerequisites exist (requires ANTHROPIC_API_KEY). Clearly contrasts with generic starter prompts as the alternative.

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