save_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a mutation tagged [mutation], requires confirmation via the confirm parameter, and describes the normal flow where the first call returns requires_confirmation=true. It warns against calling again and explains how to handle user insistence.

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 long but well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose and critical warning. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. However, the clarity and completeness outweigh the length.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (mutation with confirmation flow, sibling tools for modification), the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, step-by-step confirmation, error handling, and how to respond to user. No output schema is needed as the flow is explained.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema: it explains when to use the 'prompt' parameter vs apply_prompt_instruction, and how the 'confirm' parameter functions in the confirmation flow. This additional guidance justifies a 4.

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 'Guardar prompt — Guarda un nuevo prompt para la IA', specifying the verb (guardar) and resource (prompt). It explicitly contrasts with apply_prompt_instruction for modifications, distinguishing it from a sibling 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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use apply_prompt_instruction for adding/modifying/removing parts of the prompt, and only use save_prompt for a complete replacement. It details the confirmation flow step-by-step, instructing the agent to stop after receiving requires_confirmation=true and never call again even if the user verbally confirms.

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