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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well. It explicitly discloses that the tool creates content under the account, may create a new version, runs automated checks and an AI safety scan, queues for human review, and does not publish anything.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and prerequisite, then expanding into effects and requirements. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, side effects, and the fact that check results are returned, which is strong given there is no output schema. Still, it could clarify what happens if checks fail and give slightly more detail about the returned check results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining versioning behavior for existing names and emphasizing body requirements. This helps an agent understand how the name, body, and note parameters interact.

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 states a specific action ('Submit a skill to emdly for review'), a clear resource, and the expected outcome. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like install_skill and search_skills by emphasizing review-only submission rather than publishing or retrieval.

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 description gives clear context: sign-in is required, a new version is created if the name already exists, and the body must be complete Markdown with a title and License section. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the review-focused wording makes the intended use fairly obvious.

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