create_custom_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Add a prompt' which implies a mutating operation, but does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing prompts, uniqueness constraints, or authentication requirements. The description is too minimal to give the agent confidence about the operation's full implications.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the essential action ('Add a prompt') and scope ('to this user's library'). Every element earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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 create operation with only two parameters, both fully documented in the schema, and an output schema present (which removes the need to describe return values), the description is mostly complete. The only missing aspect is behavioral context (e.g., what happens on duplicate titles), but given the simplicity and the schema coverage, this is a minor gap.

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%, with both parameters (title and content) having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters themselves; it only provides context about the destination ('this user's library'). Since the schema already documents both parameters meaningfully, the description does not need to compensate for gaps, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Add a prompt to this user's library' clearly states the verb (add), the resource (a prompt), and the scope (this user's library). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_custom_prompts, update_custom_prompt, and delete_custom_prompt through the action, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. It is specific and unambiguous, but could be slightly more explicit about being a create operation (e.g., 'create' instead of 'add').

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as write_prompt_file or update_custom_prompt. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or conditions that would indicate this is the appropriate choice. The agent is left to infer usage based on the name and schema alone.

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