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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description discloses that version pins are ignored, that org skills must be published, the built-in fallback behavior, catalog copy/install/reuse semantics, refusal cases, and that the agent is rebuilt so the change takes effect.

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?

Purpose is correctly front-loaded in the first sentence, but the body is dense run-on prose and repeats the latest-version/@v2-ignored rule that the schema already states. Every clause carries substance, yet the length is higher than needed for a three-parameter tool.

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 complex, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers prerequisites, edge cases, refusal outcomes, idempotent behavior, and account requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter and the @v<N> pin. The description nonetheless adds meaning by explaining what org:, bare, and catalog: prefixes do at runtime (install a copy, reuse an existing copy, refuse name collisions), which is beyond the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Attach a skill to an agent so the agent can use it') and adds the key scope constraint 'Skills attach to agents only,' which separates it from attach_channel, attach_connector, and attach_resource. An agent knows exactly what this does 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?

Gives clear routing context for the argument forms (org:/bare name vs catalog:<name>) and the prerequisite chain (create_service with kind skill, then publish_skill, or a built-in). It does not, however, explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like attach_resource or detach_skill, so selection against alternatives is left implicit.

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