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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that submissions land as drafts in a review queue, only appear after team approval, are text-only with no code downloads in v1, and require a hub key. Missing details are minor (whether drafts are editable, resubmission behavior, rate limits).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the review workflow, ending with the hard requirements. No filler or 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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the key agent-relevant context: the draft/review lifecycle, format limitation, and auth requirement. It doesn't spell out the immediate return (e.g., draft ID or queue status), a small remaining gap.

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 schema already documents title, description, body, and credit_name with lengths and examples, establishing baseline 3. The description's 'text only — write the playbook, no code downloads' adds a content constraint on body but no per-parameter syntax beyond the schema.

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 (offer/submit) and resource (a skill to the Skills Hub), which clearly separates it from siblings skills_get, skills_list, and skills_rate. An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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 makes the usage context clear (publishing a skill, subject to team review) and lists two prerequisites: a hub key and text-only content in v1. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like skills_rate or skills_list, but the publish intent is unambiguous.

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