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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description explains that the write is staged, not effective: it uses the normal skill version store and needs human review and publishing on the Skills page. It also discloses what happens in the meantime: repeat runs read run summaries and the last approved memory. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying load: the action and timing, the review/publish workflow, the fallback read behavior, and the content restriction. The most important operational context (timing) is front-loaded.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers timing, workflow, human-review consequences, and content restrictions. It does not say what the tool returns (such as a proposal or version identifier) or what happens if the proposal is rejected, a minor remaining gap.

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?

The single parameter 'content' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description has to carry the semantic load. It does so by characterizing the payload as a 'short' skill update and by prohibiting sample rows, personal data, and secrets, which meaningfully constrains what belongs in 'content'.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Propose a short tenant automation-memory skill update,' and it scopes it to the end of a find-and-automate run. It implies a distinction from skill_apply by saying a person must review and publish, but it never names a sibling tool explicitly.

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?

It states when to call the tool: at the end of a find-and-automate run, in the app chat, after writing the run artifact. It also states a clear constraint: never put sample rows, personal data, or secrets in the skill. It does not name alternative tools or say explicitly when not to call it.

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