create_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create a prompt' but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or any error conditions. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it is concise and front-loaded. Loses a point for not being more informative.

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?

Given the tool complexity (6 params, write operation) and presence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and when it fails. While the output schema exists, the description does not mention the return value. It is minimally complete but lacks context like idempotency or error handling.

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 input schema has 0% parameter description coverage. The description lists some parameter names but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no format, constraints, or default behaviors). For a 6-parameter tool, this is inadequate.

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 verb (create) and resource (prompt) and lists the key parameters (content, system instruction, model, display name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_prompts, read_prompt, update_prompt, and delete_prompt.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. It does not say 'use this to create a new prompt; use update_prompt to modify an existing one'.

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