update_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' signals mutation but the description does not explain whether updates are partial (only provided fields) or complete replacement, nor does it mention potential side effects, permissions, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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, efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It conveys the essential purpose in minimal words, scoring high on conciseness.

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?

The schema fully documents all parameters, but the description lacks important behavioral context such as whether updates are partial, what the return value looks like, and any error conditions. For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves a notable gap, though the clear purpose and complete schema prevent it from being severely deficient.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters (tags, title, content, category, promptId, description), providing clear meaning for each field. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 'Update an existing prompt template in DreamingAI' clearly identifies the action (update), the resource (prompt template), and the system (DreamingAI). It distinctly differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_prompt, create_prompt, and delete_prompt, which are named for different operations.

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 phrase 'existing prompt template' implies this tool is for modifying an already-created prompt, providing subtle usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this vs. create_prompt or get_prompt, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., that the prompt must exist).

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