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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the admin-only auth requirement, the 403 failure mode, the DRAFT-vs-PUBLISHED default, and the frontmatter-parsing/override precedence. It stops short of describing behavior on duplicate slugs or existing skills (overwrite vs conflict).

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 critical 'ADMIN ONLY' constraint is front-loaded, and each clause carries information. The parenthetical enumeration of landing page fields is dense, but it maps to real parameters rather than 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?

For a 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers auth, defaults, and frontmatter handling well. It omits the side-effect/conflict behavior for pre-existing slugs, which would round out completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the structured fields already document every parameter. The description still adds non-schema value by explaining that SKILL.md frontmatter name/description is parsed automatically and explicit arguments override it, clarifying the precedence among the 13 fields.

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 names a specific verb and resource (upload a skill to the catalog) and expands the scope to writing full landing page content, listing the concrete copy artifacts. It is clearly distinguishable from the get-skill and update-skill siblings by its 'upload' action.

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 states the strong precondition 'ADMIN ONLY', warns that non-admin accounts get a 403, and clarifies the default DRAFT outcome unless status is PUBLISHED. It does not explicitly route the agent to update-skill for existing skills, so the sibling distinction is left implicit.

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