Generate brand prompts

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

Despite annotations already carrying destructiveHint=true, the description adds real value: it specifies exactly what gets destroyed ('active prompts'), what is preserved ('history'), and the auth requirement (ANTHROPIC_API_KEY). These details materially shape how an agent should treat the call, going well beyond the structured 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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the second half packs the two highest-value caveats (API key requirement, history preservation) plus a one-line example. No filler — every clause earns its place for an agent deciding whether to invoke safely.

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 2-parameter tool with a fully covered schema, an output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description ties everything together: what happens, what is needed, and what survives the call. No critical operational fact an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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%, so both brand_id and count are already described in the input schema; the baseline is therefore 3. The description adds only a compact usage example ('brand_id='acme', count=20') and frames parameters as producing buyer-intent prompts — mild added value, but no semantic depth the schema lacks.

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 action ('Replace active prompts') with a distinctive mechanism ('Claude-Haiku-generated buyer-intent prompts') and scoping detail ('preserves history'). The generation mechanism clearly differentiates it from near-sibling set_prompts and read-only siblings like list_prompts, even without naming them.

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 states a prerequisite ('requires ANTHROPIC_API_KEY') and gives an invocation example, which implies when the tool is usable. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions — e.g., when the agent should prefer set_prompts or a non-destructive path. Guidance is mostly implicit.

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