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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the consequence that annotations cannot express: the previous content is not recoverable because the active revision is overwritten in place. It also adds a permission constraint (team skills only) beyond the structured fields.

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, zero filler: the destructive consequence comes first, then the safer alternative path, then the eligibility constraint. Each sentence 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?

No output schema is needed for a mutation whose effect is fully described; the description covers destructiveness, reversibility, the preferred alternative workflow, and the permission scope. Nothing an agent needs before calling it is missing.

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% across all three parameters (path, content, skill_id), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (update) and resource (content of a file in a skill) plus the exact effect ('overwriting the active revision in place'). This clearly separates it from near-neighbors like updateSkillRevisionFile, getSkillFileContent, and updateFileContent.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to an alternative non-destructive flow and names the exact three tools that compose it (createSkillRevision, updateSkillRevisionFile, promoteSkillRevision), plus a hard precondition ('Only team skills can be edited'). Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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