lbm_add_prompts

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds constraints (max 50/100, returns array of prompts) not present in annotations, increasing transparency. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise, using clear section headers (WHEN TO USE, REQUIRES, RETURNS, NEXT STEP). Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return type. All parameters are documented in schema and referenced in description. Tool is simple and the description covers prerequisites, limits, and next steps. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the return type ('Array of created prompts with prompt_id') and noting the max limit (50) per request, which is not in the schema. Provides useful context beyond the schema.

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 action ('add...prompts'), identifies the resource ('to a project'), and explains what prompts are. This distinguishes from sibling tools like lbm_delete_prompt. Purpose is immediately clear.

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 includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section, specifies required project_id from lbm_list_projects, and notes max limits. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is sufficient. A minimal gap in stating alternatives.

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