update_custom_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that `content` replaces the whole text, which is a critical behavioral trait (full overwrite) that prevents accidental data loss. However, it does not clarify behavior for the `title` parameter (e.g., whether omitting it preserves the existing title) or whether the update is atomic. These gaps leave some uncertainty, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences total. The first sentence states the core action and the second provides a critical usage guardrail. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant explanation.

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 straightforward update tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential nuance (content replacement). It does not mention the optionality of parameters or specify the return value, but these are either visible in the schema or standard for update operations. The key behavioral edge case is addressed, making it complete enough for an agent to call accurately.

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 schema already describes each parameter (title as 'New title, if changing', content as 'New full text, if changing', prompt_id as UUID). The description adds significant semantic value for `content` by explaining it replaces the entire text and recommending a read-first workflow for amendments. This goes beyond the schema's static descriptions and helps the agent use the parameters correctly.

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 clear action ('Edit') on a specific resource ('a custom prompt's title or content'). This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like create_custom_prompt, delete_custom_prompt, and get_custom_prompt, which have distinct verbs and purposes. The subject is precise and leaves no confusion about the tool's role.

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 explicitly provides a when-to-use guideline: read with `get_custom_prompt` first when amending rather than rewriting the content. This directly instructs the agent on the correct workflow for partial edits, which is valuable and goes beyond the schema. No alternative tool is mentioned but the guidance is specific and actionable.

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