Editorial discussion starter — ShamsMag This researched opening post is from the editorial team, not a question submitted by a reader. A more useful prompt usually explains what you need done, supplies relevant context and defines the output. That still does not make the answer correct. A review step should say how you will check the result against the input. Try this fictional exercise: replace 'write a good product description' with a request naming the audience, the supplied product facts, the word limit and the required format. Tell the tool to flag missing facts instead of filling them in. Compare whether the result follows those constraints; do not judge it only by how polished it sounds. Google’s prompting guidance treats prompt development as an iterative process, so a first draft is a starting point rather than proof of reliability. For discussion: which part of your request most often needs clarification — the task, the background or the output format? Share a short invented example and explain how you would check the answer. Do not paste a client brief or other private material. Source: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/prompting-strategies Related reading: https://shamsmag.com/structured-ai-output-format-versus-facts/
By ShamsMag editorial team · 2026-11-02 22:00:45