refresh-prompts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it backs up existing prompts, compares templates, identifies customizations, merges updates, and requires user approval before modifications. This covers safety and process details, though it lacks specifics on error handling or performance.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause and efficiently uses three sentences to detail the process and requirement. Every sentence adds essential information without waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of a tool that modifies prompts with user approval, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, the process, and the approval step, though it could benefit from mentioning the output format or error scenarios to be fully comprehensive.

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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's behavior and context, which adds value beyond the empty 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 clearly states the specific action ('refresh project-specific prompts') and resource ('prompts'), explaining it involves updating templates while preserving customizations. It distinguishes from potential siblings like 'sync' or 'organize' by focusing on template merging with user approval.

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 clear context for usage ('with latest template improvements while preserving customizations') and implies when to use it (for updating prompts from templates). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when to choose 'sync' instead.

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