chatgpt_write_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavior: the tool writes without sending. However, it does not mention that it overwrites existing draft text by default unless append=true, though that is already captured in the append parameter schema. Adequate but not richly transparent.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and non-send behavior, then gives the intended use case. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description plus schema covers the main workflow and the overwrite/append distinction. It lacks explicit notes on return values, errors, or browser-state requirements, so it is good but not fully complete.

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 50%: append is well described, and prompt is self-explanatory via its name and minLength constraint. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 a specific action: writing a prompt into the ChatGPT web input box without sending it. The explicit '但不发送' (but does not send) differentiates it clearly from siblings like chatgpt_submit_prompt and chatgpt_send_message.

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?

It gives a concrete usage scenario: suitable for uploading files first or for letting the user review the draft before sending. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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