rate_prompt

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

The description explains the action (upvote/downvote) and parameter meanings, but with no annotations, it does not disclose behavioral details like reversibility, authentication requirements, or side effects (e.g., public visibility of votes).

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 concise (two sentences plus parameter list), front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no redundant or extraneous information.

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 the simplicity of the tool, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. However, it lacks details on return value or prerequisites (e.g., prompt existence), but these are minor for a rating action.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: 'prompt_id: Prompt ID to rate' and 'upvote: True = thumbs up, False = thumbs down'. With 0% schema coverage, this provides necessary semantics for both parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Rate a prompt — upvote if it worked well, downvote if not.' It uses a specific verb ('rate') and resource ('prompt'), and is easily distinguishable from siblings (get, list, search, share).

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 implies usage context ('Helps the community find the best prompts') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, such as whether to use this for personal or community prompts, or any exclusivity rules.

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