update_prompt_version

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

The description explains that only label assignment occurs (not destructive) and that null clears the label. Annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) are consistent; description adds detail on the specific update behavior.

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 front-load the purpose and add a crucial usage hint without any wasted words.

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 rich schema and annotations, the description is complete for the use case. It covers the operation and prerequisite, though it could mention potential errors or permission requirements.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema by explaining that null clears the label and advising to use list_prompt_labels to obtain IDs. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enhances understanding.

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 tool updates a prompt version's label assignment, with a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_prompt (updates prompt fields) and update_prompt_label (updates label metadata) by focusing solely on label assignment.

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 prerequisite: use list_prompt_labels to look up IDs. It implies that this tool is for label management only, but does not explicitly exclude other uses or compare to siblings.

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