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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining that installing only stores the skill, that state-changing steps in later runs preview first and require confirmation, and that duplicate names get a non-colliding name. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then the safety model, collision behavior, and return value. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler.

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?

With one simple parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers everything needed: the source of the id, the purpose, safety semantics, duplicate handling, and the return shape. An agent has enough information to invoke 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?

The input schema already documents the single required 'id' parameter as 'The community skill id from recipe_discover,' and schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the id's origin but adds no new parameter-level details, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Installs'), a specific object ('a community SKILL by id'), and the context ('onto this Mac so recipe_run can use it'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like recipe_discover and recipe_run by naming the source and the downstream consumer.

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 explicitly ties the id to recipe_discover and explains that installation is a prerequisite for recipe_run, establishing a clear workflow context. It does not spell out when not to use it or name alternative install/import paths, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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