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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: same-name publishing replaces the skill with the next version (consistent with idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and replacement is restricted to the original publisher or a team admin. Neither the versioning semantics nor the authorization rule is derivable from the structured fields.

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, front-loaded with capability then constraints, and essentially no filler. Slightly dense with stacked clauses ('a folder with a SKILL.md, whose front matter has a name and a description saying when to use it'), but each sentence carries a distinct fact.

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 need not be described. The description still covers the mutation's consequences, authorization, team-session precondition, required SKILL.md structure, and both input modes – everything needed to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'files' is required unless upload_id is set, SKILL.md must be among the files, and the deploy_project analogy frames both modes. It stops short of explaining path/encoding details, which the schema already handles.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Save a skill for the whole team') and immediately defines what a skill is (a folder with SKILL.md plus its front matter and supporting files). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling get_skill, which is named as the consumer side, so an agent knows this is the write half of the pair.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite and exclusion ('Only for a session signed in for a team'), tells the agent which sibling to use for retrieval (get_skill), and routes the upload path through create_upload. It also specifies the two mutually exclusive input modes so the agent knows which to pick.

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