share_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action (share, add to library) but does not disclose side effects, permanence, moderation, or required permissions, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a write operation.

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: a two-line summary followed by a clear argument list. Every sentence is essential, and the structured format aids readability.

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 parameter semantics but misses overall behavioral context such as expected response, idempotency, authentication requirements, or whether duplicate prompt_ids are handled. Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema), more context is warranted.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by providing meaningful examples and format hints for each parameter (e.g., prompt_id example, tags JSON format, category options), which 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Share' and the resource 'a prompt with the community', differentiating from siblings like get_prompt, list_popular_prompts, etc., which are read-only operations.

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 for contributing prompts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_prompts to find existing prompts) or when not to use it.

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