keyso_post_ai_tracker_id_prompts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the HTTP method and path, which already appear in the tool name. It does not mention what happens on success, whether the operation is idempotent, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a POST endpoint with a mutable body.

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, with the purpose stated first, followed by the method and path. It avoids redundancy and is easy to scan. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, but for what it includes, it is well-structured.

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?

The tool has a complex body parameter with no defined schema (additionalProperties allowed), no output schema, and sits among many similar AI tracker endpoints. The description does not explain what a 'prompt' is, what the body should contain, or how this differs from the group variant. This leaves critical gaps for an agent attempting to use it correctly.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all parameters, but they are terse (e.g., 'JSON body', 'in: path'). The description adds no extra meaning about the body structure, required fields, or how to construct a prompt. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description fails to enhance parameter understanding.

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 states 'AI Tracker - adding prompts' (Трекер ИИ - добавление промптов), which is a clear verb (add) and resource (prompts to an AI tracker). It also provides the HTTP method and path, making the action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool keyso_post_ai_tracker_id_prompts_group, relying on the name difference to distinguish them, which is acceptable but not explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the group variant or other AI tracker endpoints. The description only repeats the endpoint information without specifying prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. An agent would not know if it should use this instead of keyso_post_ai_tracker_id_prompts_group for a given scenario.

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