Add Prompt Sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers meaningful disclosure: the operation targets a 'LIVE' run (indicating mutation), the worklist 're-derives (submitted deliverables keep their entries),' and critically, 'Nothing is written on any problem' — an atomic/no-op-on-failure guarantee. It omits permissions and reversibility, but covers the most decision-relevant effects.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose statement up front, followed by tight backtick-delimited parameter semantics and a closing atomicity guarantee. Every sentence adds information; nothing is filler.

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 and there are no annotations, the description covers the key ground: what each mode does, what effects occur (re-derivation, new_prompt_tasks), and failure behavior. Remaining gaps are minor — the unexplained `now` parameter and no explicit sibling routing — but the tool is a moderately complex 5-parameter mutation and is described well enough to invoke correctly.

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 the description must compensate, and it does for the substantive parameters: paths (app-relative, user-confirmed), dismiss (candidate files or path:line:keyword addresses), and rationale (required for dismiss). The gap is `now`, which is never mentioned, and `run_dir` is only implied via 'application-relative' rather than explained.

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 opening sentence names specific verbs and resources — 'Add prompt source files to a LIVE run, or dismiss discovery candidates' — and usefully reveals the dismiss mode that the title alone hides. This distinguishes the tool from the many submission/confirmation siblings (submit_adapted_prompt, confirm_prompt_consumer, get_research_prompts) by its live-run worklist context.

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 gives explicit conditions for each operational mode: paths are 'application-relative prompt files the user confirmed are live prompts,' while dismiss targets 'unreferenced candidate files or dynamic consumer addresses the USER says are not prompts' with a required rationale. It does not name alternatives or exclusions among siblings, but the within-tool usage context is clear and unambiguous.

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