update_prompt_partial

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true). The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses versioning semantics, that untouched fields are preserved ('Only provided fields change'), and that the new version is inactive until published — which also explains the non-idempotent repeated-version behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste; the core behavior (new version, partial patch) is front-loaded and the publish dependency follows immediately.

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 a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description only needs to convey versioning and lifecycle behavior, which it does. The one loose end is the ambiguity between the settable 'status: active' parameter and the statement that the new version remains inactive until published.

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 each of the five parameters is already documented. The description only loosely maps 'content or metadata' onto the string/name/description/status fields and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. It notably does not clarify the interaction between the 'status: active' enum value and the claim that new versions stay inactive until publish.

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 new version of a partial by updating its content or metadata' — which tells the agent this is a versioned patch rather than an in-place edit. It does not explicitly contrast itself with update_prompt_version or create_prompt_partial, but the 'partial' resource and new-version framing are unambiguous.

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 publish requirement is stated ('stays inactive until publish_partial makes it current'), which gives useful workflow context and points at the natural follow-up tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance against siblings such as update_prompt_version or create_prompt_partial, so usage is only implied.

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