create_prompt_partial

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

Annotations provide basic hints (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds behavioral context: returns specific IDs (partial id, slug, version id) and notes the version remains inactive until published. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the key return values and state are succinctly covered.

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 existence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on key return fields and version state. It omits details like workspace_id requirements for org-level keys, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a creation 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 ('Create') and the resource ('reusable prompt partial'), and explains its purpose for shared snippets/macros. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_prompt' by emphasizing reusability and the inactive status until publication.

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 a clear use case ('for shared snippets or macros') and mentions that the version stays inactive until published, which guides when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'publish_partial' for activation.

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