devbook_create_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It establishes that this is a write operation but says nothing about required permissions, whether the title must be unique, what the response contains (no output schema exists, so the created prompt's ID is unknown), or how pinned/pinned_position interact on creation.

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 the core action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical is the only addition and it earns its place by clarifying the two creation contexts.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and placement but omits return value, permission expectations, and pinning behavior. Adequate as a selector, insufficient as a calling guide.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a small amount of meaning by restating the project-vs-standalone choice that project_id's schema note already covers, and says nothing about body defaults or pinned ordering.

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 verb and resource ("Create a new prompt template") and scopes it to two creation modes (project or standalone scratchpad). It is clearly distinct from sibling operations like update_prompt/get_prompt, though it never names an alternative 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?

The parenthetical gives situational context — use this for a project-bound prompt or a standalone scratchpad — which implicitly maps to project_id handling. It stops short of saying when to prefer create over update_prompt, or what prerequisites (e.g., an existing project) are needed.

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