enhance_prompt

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with a closed-world scope. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but only adds that it transforms 'vague requests' - which is essentially restating the tool's purpose rather than providing additional behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, or transformation specifics.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with relevant keywords. It uses a pipe-separated format to list synonyms and transformation goals efficiently, then adds a brief purpose statement. Every element serves a purpose without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 transformation tool with good annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and comprehensive parameter documentation, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It states what the tool does but lacks information about output format, transformation methodology, or quality of enhancements. Without an output schema, the description could benefit from mentioning what kind of enhanced prompt to expect, but it meets minimum viability given the structured data coverage.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how the 'enhancement_type' choices affect the transformation, how 'context' influences the enhancement, or provide examples of prompt transformations. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema coverage.

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's purpose: transforming vague requests into more specific, detailed, or clarified versions. It lists specific transformation goals (clarity, specificity, context) and provides synonyms for 'enhance' (be specific, more detail, clarify, elaborate). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'enhance_prompt_gemini', which appears to be a similar tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions what the tool does, it doesn't indicate when it's appropriate to use versus other prompt-related tools like 'analyze_prompt', 'suggest_improvements', or its sibling 'enhance_prompt_gemini'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with similar tools.

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