update-prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this complete lack of behavioral information is inadequate and potentially misleading.

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 maximally concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place by identifying the core action and resource. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the structure is front-loaded and efficient from a pure brevity perspective.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'updating' entails beyond the name parameter, what happens to other prompt attributes, what the tool returns, or any error conditions. For a tool that modifies data, this minimal description leaves critical gaps in understanding its behavior and outcomes.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('promptId' and 'name') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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 'Update a prompt' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it correctly identifies the verb ('update') and resource ('prompt'), it fails to specify what aspects of a prompt can be updated or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update-project'. This minimal statement provides no differentiation or specificity beyond the name itself.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing prompt ID), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'create-prompt', 'delete-prompt', or 'get-prompt-by-id'. Without any context about appropriate usage scenarios, the agent has no basis for making informed decisions about tool selection.

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