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

Annotations are minimal, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a meaningful side effect beyond what annotations express: toggling only affects new Ask Duvo chats, while open chats keep their original skill set until their sandbox is replaced. This timing nuance is valuable and not derivable from readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral detail about when the change takes effect. Every line earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter boolean toggle with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description explains the operation and its temporal side effects on new versus existing chats. It does not mention permissions or return values, but those are less critical for this kind of flag update.

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?

The schema documents only skill_id with 'Skill ID.', leaving use_in_ask_duvo undocumented. At 50% coverage, the description partially compensates by clarifying the boolean's semantics ('Mark as available, or take it back off') and implying skill_id identifies a team skill, but it does not expand meaningfully on skill_id beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a team skill as available in Ask Duvo, or take it back off.' This clearly identifies it as a toggle for Ask Duvo availability and distinguishes it from siblings like updateSkill or updateSkillRevision, which concern other skill attributes.

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 provides clear behavioral context by explaining that new chats pick up marked skills while existing chats retain their original set until sandbox replacement. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it; selection among the many update* siblings is left to inference.

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