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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the danger profile is known; the description's contribution is that deletion is one of the supported actions and that built-ins are immutable. It says nothing about whether deletes are recoverable, what an update does to omitted fields, or why idempotency_key is mandatory.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the constraint. Nothing wasted.

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?

An 11-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation needs far more than two sentences. An agent must open the schema and guess at the semantics of instructions, run_mode, status, and idempotency_key before it can call this safely.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, including enum-bearing fields like module, status, and run_mode, and the required idempotency_key. The description explains none of them beyond loosely implying the action verb, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb set (create/edit/delete) and a specific resource (custom workspace skills), plus a scope constraint (built-in skills cannot be changed). It doesn't explicitly contrast with skills_list, but the operation is unmistakable.

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 exclusion 'Built-in skills cannot be changed' is a genuine when-not signal, but it constrains the target resource rather than routing between tools. There is no mention of skills_list for reading or of any prerequisite for calling save.

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