upsert-prompt

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It mentions 'create or update' but does not specify update behavior (e.g., overwrite, new version), idempotency, error conditions, or required permissions. The example only illustrates creation.

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 relatively brief but includes an example that adds length without critical value. It could be more concise by focusing on tool behavior and parameters.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on the return value (just 'confirmation message'), error handling, and update semantics. The example only covers the creation path.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'template and configuration' and 'model settings', adding some context beyond the raw schema, but does not detail the meaning of each parameter or the significance of defaults.

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 creates or updates a prompt with template and configuration. It distinguishes the upsert action from sibling tools that are read-only or version-tagging, but lacks explicit differentiation from other mutation tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add-prompt-version-tag or create a new prompt version. The example only shows creation, not update, leaving the update scenario ambiguous.

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