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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds real value by disclosing the default visibility (personal unless teamId is passed). However, for a tool flagged idempotentHint=false it says nothing about duplicate-name handling or what a repeated create does, and nothing about failure modes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the default/sharing rule, then the runtime pairing. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the sharing model is clearly stated. The only meaningful omission is behavior on name collision, which matters given the non-idempotent annotation.

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 coverage is 67%, with prompt and teamId documented but name undocumented. The description compensates by explaining that teamId comes from skill_list's teams and that omitting it yields a personal skill, which goes beyond the schema's bare 'Share with this team' text.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Save a reusable analysis prompt as a skill.' It also positions the tool relative to skill_run and skill_list, though it never distinguishes creation from skill_update, which an agent must infer.

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?

It states the default scoping (personal) and the condition that changes it (pass teamId to share with a team), plus the pairing with skill_run. It stops short of saying when to create a new skill versus update an existing one via skill_update.

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