prompt_updateUpdate a saved prompt by changing its name or text. Provide only the fields to modify.
Update a saved prompt. Only provide fields to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name. | |
| text | No | New prompt text. | |
| promptId | Yes | The prompt id (see prompt_list). | |
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. Use organization_list to find it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real value by signaling partial-update semantics (only changed fields), which matters given idempotentHint=false. However, it says nothing about required permissions, merge behavior for omitted fields, or error handling on a bad promptId.
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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key caveat. Nothing is redundant, though it is on the terse side for a mutation tool.
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 simple 4-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essentials (what it does, partial-update behavior). It omits any note on authorization scope or what the response confirms, which would help given there is no output schema.
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% and each of the four parameters is documented in-schema (including pointers to prompt_list/organization_list), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the generic 'only provide fields to change' hint.
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 (Update) and resource (a saved prompt), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not reference sibling tools like prompt_create or prompt_get to sharpen the distinction, but the name plus verb is enough to separate it from list/get/delete variants.
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?
'Only provide fields to change' implies patch-style partial-update usage, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as prompt_create. Usage is only implied from the tool name and patch note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.