update_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful fact—that the prompt's version is incremented—but omits critical mutation details such as whether updates are partial or full, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, and what the response contains.

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 the key operation and versioning behavior front-loaded. It is concise, though arguably too terse given the nested updates object and mutation semantics.

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?

For a mutation tool with a nested updates object, no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain partial-update behavior, versioning implications, or field-level semantics that an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 only 50%, with the entire nested 'updates' object lacking property descriptions. The description says only 'Update fields' and does not enumerate or clarify the meaning of name, tags, content, metadata, variables, or isTemplate, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing prompt'), making the operation immediately identifiable. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like add_prompt or get_prompt, but the verb and resource are distinct enough that an agent can differentiate it without opening the 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_prompt, get_prompt, or apply_template. The implied usage is updating an existing prompt, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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