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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, but the description does more by explaining the approval flow (sensitive-tier, manager approval, from-now-on vs just-once). However, it doesn't describe what happens on conflict or overwriting, and the destructive nature isn't explicitly elaborated. The description adds value but gaps remain.

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?

The description is concise, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by examples and approval guidance. It is structurally clear, though the sensitive-tier note could be shorter. Overall, it's efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 3 required) and no output schema, the description covers usage and approval but doesn't explain the return value or confirm success. It lacks details on the skill's hierarchy or linking behavior. It's adequate but not complete for an agent to fully anticipate outcomes.

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 all 8 parameters are described. The description adds context for some parameters (e.g., agent_name preference) but largely relies on the schema. It doesn't add syntax or format details beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool creates or updates a skill (process/procedure) for an agent, with specific verb and resource. It includes concrete examples of user intents. However, it is not explicitly differentiated from siblings like update_playbook or add_agent_activity, though the focus on 'skills' is distinct.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use cues with user phrasing examples and states it should be called on the first clear ask. It implicitly excludes alternative tools by focusing on skills, though doesn't name siblings. The guidance is strong enough for an agent to decide when to invoke.

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