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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and non-read-only, and the description adds real context: this is a full replace (not a patch), it is guarded by an expected version (optimistic concurrency), and it incurs owner-paid Space entry cost via the Curator path. It stops short of saying what happens on version mismatch or how idempotency_key behaves.

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 tightly packed sentences with the replace semantics front-loaded. The 'same owner-paid Space entry mutation path as Curator' clause is jargon-heavy and slightly opaque, but it does carry cost/convention information.

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 output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the destructive replace and version precondition. However, for an 8-param destructive mutation it omits failure behavior on version mismatch, idempotency semantics, and how required content fields interact with the replace.

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 8 parameters, but the description only explains 2 of them (knowledge_id, expected_version_id). The required name, description, instructions, idempotency_key and the nested source_refs array are left entirely to bare schema types, so the description does little to compensate.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('the exact current private skill revision') plus the two identifying inputs. It distinguishes from siblings like private_skill_get/list/create by emphasizing full revision replacement, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Implies usage through 'Replace the exact current private skill revision' and the expected_version_id precondition, but never states when to choose update over create, or what to do when you don't have the current version. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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