update_prompt_metadata_api_v1_prompts_id

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that no history is created, which is important for a mutation tool. However, it does not mention other behaviors like validation, idempotency, or error cases.

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 one short sentence, no waste. It is front-loaded with the action and key constraint. However, it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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 the existence of an output schema (not detailed) and sibling tools, the description is acceptable but minimal. It adds the key detail 'no history created' but lacks guidance on return values or full context for decision-making.

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 0%, and the description only mentions 'name' and 'command' parameters. It does not explain required vs optional fields (e.g., prompt_id required, tags optional). The tags parameter is completely ignored.

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's purpose: updating a prompt's name and command. It also includes a key behavior (no history created), distinguishing it from other update tools like update_prompt_by_id_api_v1_prompts_id.

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 implies when to use this tool (for name/command updates with no history), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Siblings like set_prompt_version or update_prompt_access exist, but no guidance is given.

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