update_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Pode atualizar qualquer campo" implies a partial-update semantic (unspecified fields are left unchanged), which is useful, but there is no information on permissions, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to fields omitted. That 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?

Two short sentences with no waste and the action front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than padded.

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?

A six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema; the description should compensate with permission requirements, partial-update behavior for omitted fields, and error conditions. It provides only the bare minimum.

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 every parameter (id, name, tags, content, category, description) is already documented in the schema. The description's "can update any field" adds only a marginal hint of partial-update semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 ("Atualiza um prompt existente"), so the agent knows this mutates an existing prompt rather than creating one. It does not differentiate from siblings like add_prompt or delete_prompt beyond the verb, but the purpose is 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus add_prompt (create) or get_prompt, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing id or ownership. Usage context is only implied by the name.

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