master_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that edit replaces or appends a single section, that a new title creates a section, that submit starts a team vote, and that vote targets the version currently being voted on (an implicit multi-step workflow). It omits permission/ownership requirements and what happens to a version after a vote resolves, but the workflow disclosure is substantive.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the resource definition comes first, then a compact action-by-action breakdown, then the usage caveat. The section list is a long run-on but each clause maps to a distinct action/parameter, so little 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?

All four enum actions are covered, the edit semantics and section vocabulary are explained, and a usage caveat is present. Since there is no output schema, return values need not be described, and the main remaining gap is the absence of permission/ownership context for a collaborative mutation tool.

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 descriptions on every property, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the mode semantics (replace default vs append) and enumerates the valid section names (Idea, Who it is for, Must-haves, etc.) and the title-adds-a-section behavior, adding mild value beyond the 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 names the resource (the team's shared master prompt) and enumerates all four actions (get/edit/submit/vote) with what each does, so the agent can map each enum value to an outcome. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling team_* tools or explain why this tool rather than team_post/team_reply would be used.

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 closing line 'Only edit or vote when your user asks' gives one concrete usage constraint, which is useful. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer get vs submit, when a vote is appropriate, or how this tool relates to the team_* siblings that likely cover adjacent collaboration actions.

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