Writing Prompts That Give the Model a Real Task

November 3, 2026
AI
3 Minutes

“Make this better” is the kind of instruction that feels clear until someone has to act on it. Better for whom Shorter, warmer, more accurate or more persuasive An AI tool cannot resolve every missing decision in your brief.

I think a useful prompt begins before you type it. You need to know the task you are giving away and the decisions you want to keep.

Write the assignment plainly

Prompting guidance from Anthropic recommends clear instructions and relevant examples. These are useful starting points, although results still depend on the model and the task.

A brief can name the intended reader, the supplied material, the requested output and the constraints. For example: rewrite an approved project description for a visitor who has no technical background; retain the factual claims; do not add clients, awards or measurable results; return a heading and three short paragraphs.

That example does more than ask for polished wording. It defines the source of truth and identifies claims the tool must not invent.

I would also specify what should happen if the source is incomplete. Asking the tool to list questions separately is usually more useful than encouraging it to fill the gaps invisibly.

The useful prompt has boundaries. Task: What needs doing. Material: The source of truth. Constraints: What must be preserved. Output: The format to return

Give an example that teaches the right thing

Imagine a fictional website project. Your source says the organisation publishes research updates, partner information and event announcements. A weak prompt might request exciting copy and receive a story about transforming the industry.

A more useful instruction would ask for a description that explains those three content types and gives visitors a clear next step. You could include an example of the sentence length and tone you want, while explicitly stating that the example's facts must not be reused.

That last detail matters. A sample about a film production should not cause a website description to inherit a shooting location or a client testimonial.

I would keep the prompt readable rather than piling up contradictory rules. If you request both extreme brevity and a complete account of every feature, decide which matters most. The model should not have to guess the hierarchy of your requirements.

You can also divide the work into stages: identify the facts, propose an outline, draft the paragraphs and check the draft against the facts. Treat each stage as something you can review.

An editing test for generated copy. Facts: Preserved accurately?. Reader: Understands the purpose?. Structure: Matches the brief?. New claims: Need evidence or removal?

Judge the output against the brief

Before running the prompt, write a small assessment list. Does the answer preserve the original facts Does it address the intended reader Is the requested format present Did it introduce anything that needs evidence Can a visitor understand the next step

Keep one difficult example for later. If you change the prompt repeatedly until it handles a single description perfectly, you have not yet learned whether it handles another description well.

For a useful comparison, save the prompt version, the model used and the source material. Then compare answers against the same criteria. An improvement in style should not hide a decline in accuracy.

Some tasks remain unsuitable for automatic acceptance. A prompt that requests verified facts does not itself perform verification. A prompt that requests a particular tone does not establish that the result represents your experience.

The best instruction is often a modest one with a clear boundary. Give the system enough information to attempt the job, inspect what it returns and keep the editorial decision with the person responsible for the work.

A good prompt is a brief. The finished answer still needs an editor.

Sources and further reading

Research checked on October 5, 2026. Original explanatory illustrations by Sami Haraketi, prepared for this article.

Sources and further reading

Research checked on October 5, 2026. Original explanatory illustrations by Sami Haraketi, prepared for this article.

Have a project behind the idea?

I work on websites, branding and film. If you need help turning your next idea into something people can see and use, tell me what you have in mind.

THE CONVERSATION CONTINUES

What did you think?

A thought, a different perspective, a little appreciation. You’re welcome here.

No account or email needed. Comments are sent to Sami for review. Privacy

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.