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

The description reveals that the tool is a 'guided session' and does not persist results, requiring save_skill. However, it contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation by claiming to 'Create,' which is a mutation. This inconsistency severely damages transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and providing actionable guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the purpose and sequence, but the contradiction with annotations creates confusion. It does not explain the nature of the 'guided session' or output format, though an output schema exists. Overall, competent but marred by the annotation inconsistency.

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?

With no parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the tool's process (guided session) and its outcome (design needing save_skill). It appropriately compensates for the lack of parameter details by clarifying behavior.

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 'Create a new skill from scratch,' but the readOnlyHint annotation indicates the tool is read-only, creating a contradiction. It distinguishes from save_skill by specifying the need to call it afterward, but the core purpose is undermined by the annotation inconsistency.

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?

The description explains when to use this tool (designing a new skill) and provides a clear follow-up action (call save_skill()). It implicitly distinguishes from save_skill by noting the persistence step is separate, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it.

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