chatgpt_write_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the key behavioral trait that the tool writes but does not send, which is critical to prevent misuse. It also mentions the intended context (uploading files or checking drafts), adding useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not detail error conditions or prerequisites, but the main side effect and limitation are transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, the limitation, and the use case. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the main behavior (write without sending) and a common use case. It does not describe return values (though none likely exist) or prerequisites like an open browser, but these are implied by the sibling tools (e.g., chatgpt_browser_lifecycle). Given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequately complete.

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 50%: the 'append' parameter is well-described in the schema, but 'prompt' lacks a description. The description indirectly clarifies that 'prompt' is the text to write ('把提示词准确写入'), but adds little beyond that. Since the tool is simple and the prompt's purpose is self-evident, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 writes the prompt into the ChatGPT input box and explicitly notes that it does not send, distinguishing it from sibling tools like chatgpt_submit_prompt or chatgpt_send_message. The verb 'write' and resource 'ChatGPT web input box' are specific, and the 'but not send' clause prevents ambiguity.

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 use case: 'suitable for first uploading files or letting users check the draft.' This implies when to use it (preparation stage) without explicitly naming alternatives, but it gives enough context to differentiate from send/submit tools. No exclusions are mentioned, so it scores a 4.

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