create_prompt_partial

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it returns the partial id, slug and version id, and the created version is inactive until published. That lifecycle detail is the key thing an agent could get wrong. It omits any note on workspace scoping or permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering purpose, usage, return values and lifecycle. It is dense with semicolon-joined clauses, but every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 4-parameter create tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers what it creates, why, and the inactive-version lifecycle. Remaining gaps (auth/workspace scoping) are partly covered by the schema field description for workspace_id.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (name, string, workspace_id, version_description) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying that the content is a template referencing partials. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Create a reusable prompt partial') and immediately clarifies the mechanism of use ('inclusion with {{> partial_name}}') and the intent ('shared snippets or macros'), which distinguishes it from the sibling create_prompt for full prompts. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

'Use this for shared snippets or macros' gives an explicit selection criterion versus full prompts, and the note that the new version stays inactive until published implicitly routes to publish_partial. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. workspace scoping for org keys) are stated in the description.

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