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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that the current text is overwritten while 'earlier revisions stay in its history', and that expectedVersion must equal the current revision (optimistic concurrency). It says nothing about idempotency despite the idempotency_key/operation_id params, but that is not a contradiction of idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and lookup key, followed by the overwrite/concurrency constraint. Every clause earns its place; only the mismatch between 'text' and the actual 'body' param is slightly loose.

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 an 8-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the two most important behaviors (overwrite semantics and the version precondition). It omits workspace binding, path scoping, and retry/idempotency behavior that a caller of a destructive tool would benefit from.

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 50%; body, operation_id, workspace_id and idempotency_key carry their own schema descriptions. The description adds meaningful semantics for expectedVersion ('must be its current revision') and id, but leaves path and title undocumented in both schema and description, so it only partially compensates.

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+resource ('Replace the title and text of an existing skill') and the lookup key ('found by id'). This distinguishes it from write_skill (creation), read_skill, delete_skill, and history_skill without opening any 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?

The word 'existing' implies this is the update path rather than creation, but no sibling is named and no when-to-use/when-not guidance is given. An agent must infer from the sibling list that write_skill is the create alternative and history_skill retrieves revisions.

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