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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses reading architecture.hexum, conditionally writing the skill file when missing, and returning SKILL.md body plus write path. However, it omits the upsert side effect of passing intensity and leaves 'follow it' vague.

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 with no filler: purpose, mechanism, return value, and usage timing are each covered once. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 return value, conditional write behavior, and when to call the tool. But with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the missing meaning of files and workspace plus the ambiguous 'follow it' leave it only minimally complete.

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 only 50%: files and workspace have no schema descriptions. The tool description does not explain either parameter, and its mention of intensity largely repeats the schema. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 and resource: 'Install or switch the Hexum reply skill.' It also positions the tool as a prerequisite for other Hexum tools, which distinguishes it from the check/control/review sibling tools.

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 timing rule: 'Call this before other Hexum tools when the skill is not installed.' It also explains the intensity override option. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to call, so it stops short of a 5.

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