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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key traits: admin-only auth with a 403 failure mode, the partial-update contract ('only the fields you pass change'), and the mutation surface (rewriting landing content, replacing SKILL.md, publish/unpublish, appending media). It omits reversibility, versioning behavior, and any warning that supplied fields overwrite existing content, which is meaningful for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences with the critical 'ADMIN ONLY' constraint front-loaded and no filler. Each clause carries distinct information: eligibility, update semantics, capability surface, and failure mode.

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?

For a 15-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives an adequate behavioral picture (auth, partial update, capability scope). It does not touch most of the individual content fields, but the schema covers those at 60%, so the agent has enough 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 60%, so the schema already documents many parameters. The description adds meaning for a few (id-or-slug targeting, addMedia attaching media by URL, SKILL.md replacement, status as publish/unpublish) but leaves the many content fields (name, tagline, description, examples, highlights, requirements, installCommand) unexplained, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('partially update a skill in the Unsora skills catalog') with an unambiguous scope ('by id or slug'). The 'partially update' framing and the enumerated capabilities clearly separate it from create-only siblings like upload-skill and read-only get-skill.

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?

Establishes a clear precondition ('ADMIN ONLY') and outcome for the wrong caller ('Non-admin accounts get a 403'), which tells an agent exactly who may invoke it. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g., upload-skill for creation), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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