okx_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. It discloses important runtime behaviors: the automatic appending of a JSON output format suffix and the reset behavior when prompt is an empty string. However, it does not disclose whether the change is persistent, reversible, or requires any permissions, so some gaps remain.

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 three sentences and immediately front-loads the primary purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds unique value (suffix behavior and reset semantics) without redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately concise and 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, key behavior (suffix and reset), and parameter usage. It does not specify return values, but that is less critical given the simplicity. The only minor gap is a lack of clarity on success or error behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema. It explains that the prompt parameter will have a JSON output format suffix automatically appended, which directly affects how the agent behaves, and clarifies the reset semantics for empty strings. This enriches the parameter understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: customizing an agent's system prompt. It uses a specific verb ('Customize') and resource ('an agent's system prompt'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like okx_get_prompts (which reads prompts) and okx_set_llm_config (which sets model config).

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 implies the tool is used when you need to change an agent's system prompt, and provides a specific usage detail about resetting to default with an empty string. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like okx_get_prompts, leaving the usage context only implied.

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