update_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'update' indicating mutation but lacks details on side effects, authorization requirements, error handling, or whether updates are partial or full replacements. No mention of what happens to unmentioned fields.

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, front-loaded with the key action and parameters. It is concise but slightly verbose in listing fields; could be more structured. Still, no wasted words.

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 7 parameters (1 required), no nested objects, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the basic purpose and most fields but misses project_id and location_id. It lacks usage guidance and behavioral context. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%. The description lists 4 of 7 parameters (prompt_id, content, system_instruction, model, display_name) but omits project_id and location_id. It does not explain that only provided fields are updated (partial update) or specify format expectations. The description adds some meaning but is incomplete.

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 specifies the action (update) and the resource (prompt), and lists the updatable fields (content, system instruction, model, display name). It distinguishes from siblings by implying modification of an existing prompt, contrasting with create_prompt, delete_prompt, and read_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 implies usage for modifying an existing prompt identified by prompt_id. It provides clear context (update with given ID) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like create_prompt for new prompts.

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