Update Prompt Results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that the tool updates prompt statistics and can influence future refinement decisions, and it adds useful context about scoping feedback. Yet it does not disclose details like whether scores are overwritten or accumulated, idempotency, or permission requirements.

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?

Three short, focused sections. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the bolded 'Scoping Feedback' section earns its place by providing actionable guidance. 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?

The tool is complex with a nested schema and many result fields, but the description covers when to call it and clarifies the purpose of two key file-tracking parameters. The output schema presumably covers return values, so the description doesn't need to. It could be more complete by explaining the meaning of action_score or how metrics are aggregated, but it is largely sufficient.

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 top-level schema has 100% description coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The tool description goes beyond the schema by explaining the semantic purpose of files_modified and files_added – recording actual touched files and enabling narrower scope suggestions – which adds real value for the agent.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('prompt performance metrics'), and clarifies that it records outcomes after agent execution. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like refine_prompt and activate_prompt, which focus on generating or toggling prompts rather than recording results.

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?

Gives clear context: this tool should be used after agent execution to record the outcome of a refined prompt, and it explains why files_modified and files_added matter for scoping feedback. However, it does not explicitly name when to use a sibling tool instead, so it stops 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.