adapt_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful boundary that scope is not expanded, but says nothing about what the tool actually rewrites or how the original prompt is preserved.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the core action leads and the exclusion follows. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the tool transforms a user-supplied prompt using two enum parameters that are undocumented in both the schema and the description. That leaves an agent unable to judge how to pick targetAgent or audience.

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 0% and the description mentions none of the three parameters (prompt, targetAgent, audience). With two enum-constrained params and no schema prose, the description needed to compensate for choosing a target agent/audience and does not.

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 verb (add) and object (documented host guidance to an existing instruction), which is more than a tautology, but 'host guidance' is undefined jargon and no sibling is named. It only partially differentiates from the cluster of prompt tools (optimize_prompt, build_agent_instruction, etc.).

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('use when changing agent environments') and an explicit exclusion ('not for expanding task scope'). No alternative sibling is named, but the when/when-not framing is unusually clear for this set.

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