save_draft_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states that the tool saves to a database and returns a prompt_id, but does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting existing drafts, required permissions, or idempotency behavior. This is a moderate disclosure level for a write operation.

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 concise sentences deliver the purpose, target, return value, and downstream usage with no redundant words. The structure is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description appropriately mentions the return value (prompt_id) and how it connects to run_tests. Given its simplicity and the schema's completeness, the description adequately covers the tool's role and expected outcome, though it does not elaborate on handling of optional labels or edge cases.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the description adds little beyond mentioning the return value. It does not describe parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. This matches the baseline for high 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 opens with a specific verb ('Save') and identifies the exact resource ('draft prompt') plus the target context ('for a specific company'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings such as get_draft_prompt, list_draft_prompts, and run_tests by explicitly stating its role in saving for later testing and returning a prompt_id for run_tests.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to save a draft prompt for later testing, and it connects the returned prompt_id to run_tests. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is unambiguous given the sibling list.

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