update_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'update', implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects (e.g., does it affect deployed versions?), or what happens if both fields are omitted. The 'and/or' phrasing hints at partial updates but does not explicitly state that omitted fields are left unchanged. This is insufficient for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short for the tool's simplicity. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return behavior and side effects. It does not mention whether the tool returns the updated prompt, nothing, or an error if the prompt_id is invalid. It also does not clarify if the update is partial or full. Given the tool has 3 parameters and is a mutation, more context is needed.

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 the input schema already describes each parameter ('New name for the prompt', etc.). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Update a prompt's name and/or description.' It specifies the resource (prompt) and the fields affected, distinguishing it from siblings like create_prompt (which creates) and update_prompt_version (which updates a version). The verb 'update' is specific, and the scope is explicit.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool modifies the base prompt while create_prompt_version creates a new version, nor does it indicate any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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