edgegate_create_promptpack

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that creation requires admin role, that packs are immutable, and that updates require version bumps—key behavioral traits. It does not mention idempotency, conflict handling, or return value, but the most impactful side effects and permissions are covered.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value: defining a promptpack, noting the admin requirement, and flagging immutability. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 complex creation tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides the essential high-level context (purpose, permission, immutability) but lacks guidance on parameter relationships (e.g., defaults vs. overrides), versioning semantics, or what happens after a successful create. The schema helps fill structural gaps, but the description alone is not fully complete for such a nuanced operation.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining individual parameters. It only hints at the 'cases' structure with the phrase 'test cases (prompts, expected outputs, per-case overrides)' but provides no detail on workspace_id, promptpack_id, version format, defaults, or tags. The schema itself is the only source of parameter meaning, making this dimension weak.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('promptpack'), immediately stating the tool's function. It further clarifies the domain ('EdgeGate workspace') and explains what a promptpack is (test cases for regression pipelines), distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like list_promptpacks and publish_promptpack.

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 clear usage context: it states that admin role is required and that packs are immutable after creation, with the update mechanism ('bump the version') explicitly mentioned. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., create_eval_set) or when not to use it, which prevents a 5.

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