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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations (which only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true): prior versions are retained, personal versions go live immediately, team versions require workspace-owner approval unless the caller is the owner, and the operation is free. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs for a mutating tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by tightly packed but waste-free sentences covering file shape, mode selection, and release behavior. No filler.

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?

No output schema is needed since the description explains the outcome (immediate live vs approval-gated, version retention). Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile, the definition gives an agent everything required to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does: it defines `files` as the complete package of `{path: text}` with a SKILL.md frontmatter (name + one-line description) and text-only constraint, explains what `skill_id` triggers (versioning), and gives meaning to both `scope` enum values.

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?

States a specific verb (create/save) and resource (custom skill) with clear dual-mode scope. An agent can distinguish it from hyreflow_custom_skill_read and hyreflow_custom_skills_list without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent the two operating modes: omit skill_id to create, provide skill_id to save a new version. It also explains when to choose personal vs org scope. It does not, however, point to sibling tools (e.g. skill_read/list) for the alternatives, so routing guidance is slightly incomplete.

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