chatgpt_webui_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does reveal one non-obvious trait — auto mode routes long tasks to background runs and short tasks to direct waits — but it never discloses that sending a prompt mutates conversation state, what a successful call returns, or how wait vs background outcomes differ.

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?

A single 24-word sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant nugget (auto mode's dispatch strategy) is included. The structure is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a tool this complex.

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?

This is a complex tool — 14 parameters, 4 enums, no output schema, no annotations, and 8 siblings with overlapping roles — yet the description is only one sentence. It doesn't explain return values, conversation state effects, or how it differs from ask/run/command, so an agent cannot reliably decide to invoke it.

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 the baseline of 3 applies: the schema already documents all 14 parameters, including enum meanings for mode, model_mode, reasoning_effort, and deep_research_site_mode. The description adds nothing about parameters, and the schema's own descriptions are adequate but not exceptional (e.g., 'Enable Deep Research flow').

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 calls the tool a 'Unified prompt entrypoint' but supplies no verb and never explicitly states that it submits a prompt to ChatGPT. With siblings like ask, run, and command available, an agent cannot tell which tool handles a plain prompt submission.

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 mode=auto explanation is genuinely useful, telling agents that long tasks (Deep Research, Pro/Thinking, image generation) are dispatched to background runs while short tasks wait directly. However, no guidance is given for when to choose this tool over chatgpt_webui_ask, run, or command, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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