Accept a suggested prompt

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

Annotations declare a non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive mutation; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the side effects: the suggestion leaves the pending list, sibling suggestions from the same cycle are untouched, the new prompt counts against the workspace plan, and measurement starts from the next run. It even routes to get_account for the timing detail.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then side effects, then parameter behavior. Mostly earns its place, though 'the same way accepting it in the PromptEye app does' is a slightly decorative clause that adds little for an agent.

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 mutation tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything the agent needs: what it produces, what it removes from the pending list, the isolation from siblings, and the billing/measurement consequence. Return values are covered by the 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the semantic effect of promptText — it edits the wording 'before it starts being asked' — rather than just restating that it replaces the suggestion text.

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 (accept) and resource (prompt suggestion), and clarifies the outcome: the suggestion becomes a tracked prompt of the active project. It names list_prompt_suggestions as the source, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling that merely lists suggestions.

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?

Gives clear context (turning a pending suggestion into a tracked prompt) and the condition for the optional override (use promptText to edit wording, omit to accept verbatim). It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name an alternative accept path, so it stops short of 5.

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