create_text_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and a labels format, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this creates a new version of an existing prompt, whether project is required, what happens to existing prompts with the same name, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds a necessary detail about labels. Every word earns its place with no redundant information.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, a create operation, and no annotations, the two-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of 'config' or 'project', nor does it clarify versioning behavior. Although an output schema exists, the overall context remains incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's scope and requirements.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only provides semantic meaning for the 'labels' parameter ('comma-separated'), while 'config' and 'project' are left unexplained. 'name' and 'prompt' are self-evident from their names, but the description fails to add value for the other parameters.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new text prompt version.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool create_chat_prompt by specifying 'text prompt' rather than 'chat prompt', and the mention of labels hints at a separate functionality from update_prompt_labels.

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 provides a clear context for use ('Create a new text prompt version') and a formatting hint for labels, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. While the sibling tool create_chat_prompt exists, the description does not guide the agent to use that for chat prompts, so it stops short of full guidance.

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