keyso_post_ai_tracker_id_prompts_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that this is a POST that adds prompts to groups; it does not mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, rate limits, or what the response contains. The mutation intent is clear from 'adding' and POST, but little else is disclosed.

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 brief and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, then method and path, then an example URL. There is no filler, and the example request adds concrete value without bloating the text.

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?

Despite having the exact path and an example URL, the definition omits the request body structure and any return-value information, and no output schema exists to fill the gap. For an API tool with an opaque body parameter and no annotations, this is not enough for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the general idea that the payload relates to prompts and groups, but the body is an empty additionalProperties object and no field names or structure are given, leaving the agent to guess how to construct a valid request.

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 names a specific action and resource: adding prompts to groups under an AI tracker, and gives the endpoint path. It is clear about what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with sibling keyso_post_ai_tracker_id_prompts or the delete-group variant, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives like post_ai_tracker_id_prompts or delete_ai_tracker_id_prompts_group. The description simply restates the action and endpoint without giving any use-case context or exclusions.

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