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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a creation/mutation tool it discloses nothing about uniqueness constraints on name, error behavior, or persistence side effects, only the template flag's effect.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the template hint.

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?

A 6-parameter creation tool with a nested variables structure, no annotations, and no output schema needs far more disclosure about required inputs and mutation behavior than this two-sentence description provides.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains 2 of them (isTemplate, variables) and says nothing about name, content, tags, or the nested metadata object, leaving required fields and variable object shape undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add a new prompt") and clarifies the template-creation mode by naming the sibling consumer, apply_template. This distinguishes it from read/list siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with update_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?

Implies when to use the template path ("Set isTemplate and variables... that apply_template can fill"), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs update_prompt guidance, and no mention of duplicate-name behavior or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and only partially discharges it: 'return the resulting text' hints at a non-mutating render, but nothing states whether this is read-only, how missing or extra variable names are handled (error vs. leftover placeholders), or whether the template must already exist. These are the key behavioral questions for a template-rendering tool.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and ending with the return value. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

Two fully documented parameters and no output schema mean the description needn't explain return values, and it does state that rendered text comes back. However, for a nested-object input with no annotations, the silence on variable-mismatch behavior leaves a real gap for correct invocation.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds a small amount of meaning by tying the 'variables' object to the {{placeholder}} syntax, but supplies no format, naming, or completeness rules beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('Fill a template prompt's {{variables}}') and discloses the outcome ('return the resulting text'), which cleanly separates it from the CRUD siblings like get_prompt, add_prompt, and update_prompt. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 never says when to reach for this versus get_prompt, which presumably returns the raw unrendered template. An agent must infer that distinction from the verb alone. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation, and it says nothing about irreversibility, whether deletion is soft or permanent, required permissions, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. A single clause on permanence would materially change agent behavior here.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, zero padding. Its brevity is appropriate in form but leaves no room for the behavioral context this destructive tool needs.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent would want before invoking it: permanence, error semantics, and post-delete state. Sibling tools in the same family (update_prompt, get_prompt) suggest a lifecycle the definition never acknowledges.

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 a single required 'id' string described as "Prompt ID," so the schema already does the work. The description's "by its ID" restates rather than extends that, and adds no format or sourcing detail (e.g., where IDs come from).

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("Delete a prompt") with the identifier-based selection made explicit, which cleanly separates it from add_prompt, get_prompt, and update_prompt. It stops short of stating any scope or side effects, so it is clear but not maximally distinctive.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_prompt or how to recover a deleted prompt, and no prerequisites or confirmation requirements are stated. The agent must infer everything about the call context from the verb alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It implies a read but never confirms it, and says nothing about permissions, behavior for a missing or deleted ID, or what the response contains.

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?

One short sentence with the identifier constraint front-loaded and zero padding. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It still leaves the return shape and not-found behavior unstated, which an agent must discover by calling it.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines the ID and its provenance. The description's 'by its ID' adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a prompt') plus the lookup key ('by its ID'), which is enough to separate it from list_prompts. It does not explicitly name the siblings it is not (update_prompt, delete_prompt), so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The only workflow hint ('as returned by list_prompts') lives in the schema, not the description, so an agent reading the description alone gets no routing advice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the response is aggregate counts plus the tags/categories currently in use — useful since no output schema exists. However, it says nothing about scope (all users vs. current user/workspace), permissions, or freshness/rate limits. For a low-risk read tool the omission is tolerable but not thorough.

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?

A single compact clause with no filler, front-loaded on what is counted. It is a noun phrase rather than a full sentence, which slightly reduces clarity about the action, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of information about the response, yet it only gestures at 'counts, tags, categories' without shape, naming, or scope. Given the tool's whole value is the data it returns, this is thin; a sentence on the structure and scope of the stats would be needed to be complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain and the baseline is 4. No parameter-related confusion is possible here.

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 names a specific resource (counts of prompts and templates) and even the dimensions it aggregates (tags, categories in use), so an agent knows this is an aggregate-stats endpoint rather than a record fetch. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_prompts, though the name makes the distinction fairly obvious. Clear verb-of-sorts plus resource, no real sibling differentiation text.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the name that this is the aggregate-counts call and that list_prompts should be used for actual records. No conditional or routing information is provided.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a non-destructive read, and '(any match)' clarifies OR-semantics for tags, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination, truncation, or permissions for a tool that could return an unbounded collection.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource before the optional qualifiers. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation adequately. The remaining gap is the return shape: it never says what a listed prompt contains or whether the full set is returned at once.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters in near-identical wording ('any of these tags', 'name, description or content'). The description's '(any match)' reinforces the OR semantics but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (prompts), plus the two optional filter modes. It is distinguishable from get_prompt (single fetch) by the verb, though it never names or contrasts any sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'optionally' signals that calling with no arguments lists everything and filters are additive. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer get_prompt for a specific prompt, and no mention of result limits.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful fact—that the prompt's version is incremented—but omits critical mutation details such as whether updates are partial or full, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, and what the response contains.

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 efficient sentence with the key operation and versioning behavior front-loaded. It is concise, though arguably too terse given the nested updates object and mutation semantics.

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 mutation tool with a nested updates object, no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain partial-update behavior, versioning implications, or field-level semantics that an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 only 50%, with the entire nested 'updates' object lacking property descriptions. The description says only 'Update fields' and does not enumerate or clarify the meaning of name, tags, content, metadata, variables, or isTemplate, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the raw schema.

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 specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing prompt'), making the operation immediately identifiable. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like add_prompt or get_prompt, but the verb and resource are distinct enough that an agent can differentiate it without opening the schema.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_prompt, get_prompt, or apply_template. The implied usage is updating an existing prompt, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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