A community coat-drive announcement prompt that says “write something nice about coats” yields rambling essays. Which change raises quality?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Think of write something nice about coats turning into a ramble. Add audience, length, and the hours they must include. Vaguer is not better, and temperature is not a constraint.
Full Explanation
A vague coat-drive prompt like 'write something nice about coats' invites rambling because the model lacks audience, length, and mandatory content constraints. Raising quality means adding specific, concise constraints—who the announcement is for, how long it should be, and which donation hours must appear. Specificity turns an open essay into an operational notice the community can act on, with clear next steps instead of sentimental filler.
Making the prompt vaguer increases wander and essay length, not usefulness. Dropping audience and hours removes the very details volunteers and donors need to show up at the right time. Raising temperature only adds randomness; randomness is not a substitute for a tight constraint and often worsens rambling or off-topic flourishes.
Exam caveat: constraints should be testable (word limit, must-include hours, call-to-action location) so reviewers can score pass/fail instead of arguing about subjective 'niceness.'
Operational check: rewrite the prompt with audience, maximum length, and required donation hours; generate five drafts; score each against a checklist; promote the prompt to the coat-drive template only when all required fields appear consistently across the batch.