# Your Prompt Is Not the Only Prompt: How Much Do LLMs Weight Structured-Output Schema Descriptions?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.08254 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.08254/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 6 of its 9 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03172/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.01910/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models as Optimizers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.03409/) (2023)
- [Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11324/) (2023)
- [Let Me Speak Freely? A Study on the Impact of Format Restrictions on Performance of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.02442/) (2024)
- [JSONSchemaBench: A Rigorous Benchmark of Structured Outputs for Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.10868/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Type-Safe Is Not Error-Free: Typed Decision Models Follow the Option Name, Not the Definition Bound to It](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.26758/) (2026)
- [Adapt Semantics, Not Structure: Few-Instance Schema Calibration for Scientific PDF Extraction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.34841/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Structured output, where an LLM populates a predefined JSON schema, has become a default mechanism for data labeling and information extraction, but it also introduces a second instruction channel through schema descriptions. We tested whether classification-label definitions are better placed in the system prompt, user prompt, or schema description using a single-field classification task with nonce labels across ten model configurations from two vendors. Schema descriptions did not consistently outperform prompt-based placement; for GPT-4.1 and GPT-5.4 without reasoning, schema placement underperformed system prompts by 11-13 percentage points. Yet schemas are not inert metadata: when prompts and schemas conflicted, incorrect schema instructions caused accuracy drops of 5-45 points, with Claude Haiku 4.5 falling from 52.5% to 7%, indicating that schema instructions can override prompt instructions, and GPT-5.5 falling from 100% to 73%. Further, adding a required intermediate reasoning field before the label field improved schema-only accuracy by 15-24 points when headroom existed, exceeding system-prompt-only performance in every case tested. The effect held even for Claude Sonnet 4.6 at medium reasoning, where extended thinking alone did not produce a comparable gain. This suggests that schema design can affect how effectively models use information encoded in field descriptions. Overall, these results indicate that schema influence is model-dependent. In practice, the system prompt remains a safe default for definitions, but the bigger discipline is maintaining a single source of truth and preventing prompt/schema drift. More importantly, schema design itself may be a stronger lever than instruction placement. Practitioners should treat prompts and schemas as a unified instruction surface and empirically validate both placement and field design for their target model.