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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds value beyond them by disclosing the authorization model and the immutable built-in skill class. It does not say that the prior name or prompt is overwritten without recovery, nor does it explain why the operation is flagged non-idempotent, leaving some mutation consequences implicit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the permission constraints are packed into tight parentheticals. The density of nested parentheses makes it slightly harder to parse than a short bulleted structure would be, but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive mutation profile is partly covered by annotations. For a permission-gated write tool the description is nearly complete, with the main remaining gap being what happens to the previous prompt/name after a successful 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?

Schema coverage is only 25% (teamId is the sole documented parameter), so the description carries real weight here: it maps name to rename, prompt to rewrite, and repeats the null-means-personal semantics for teamId. skillId's role as the target identifier is only implied rather than stated, keeping it below a 5.

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 names three specific operations on a clearly identified resource: rename, rewrite the prompt, and change sharing. Each verb is paired with its target field, so an agent knows exactly what the tool mutates and can distinguish it from skill_create, skill_delete, or skill_run without opening another 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?

It supplies explicit preconditions per operation (author or team owner for rename/prompt edits; author only for sharing) and states an exclusion: built-in skills cannot be changed. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or saying what to do when permission checks fail, so it is strong but not a full when/when-not/alternatives map.

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