update_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a critical side-effect—editing the text preserves links to past results and only future runs use the new wording—but this largely mirrors the text parameter's schema description. It does not discuss the effects of topic or URL edits, success/error behavior, or any permissions required, leaving a clear gap.

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 with no filler: the first front-loads the operation and editable fields, and the second adds a high-value behavioral caveat about past results. Every word earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema and the description conveys the core scope and most important side-effect. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not mention return/success behavior or explicitly route to the bulk sibling update_prompts, which is a moderate gap for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description restates 'text, topic, or target page URL' but adds no new format, syntax, or interaction details beyond what the schema already provides, keeping the value at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and names the exact resource ('a single prompt') along with the three editable attributes: text, topic, and target page URL. The word 'single' clearly distinguishes it from the plural sibling update_prompts without needing to inspect any schema.

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 'a single prompt' gives a clear context for when this tool applies—one targeted edit—and contrasts implicitly with the bulk sibling update_prompts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use conditions, but the singular scope provides a sufficient directional cue for an agent selecting between tools.

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