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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that the change applies to 'every agent in the workspace' from its next use, that 'every version is kept,' that an owner can restore versions, that editing may create a workspace-local copy, and that the reply contains the new file to write over the installed copy.

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?

The description is dense but not padded; every sentence contributes a distinct fact: action, trigger, payload composition, versioning, permission/copy behavior, and response handling. It is longer than average but that length is justified by the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations.

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 mutation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all aspects an agent needs: which parameters to send, what the body should exclude, the permission gate, the versioning model, the library-copy edge case, and how to handle the returned file. Nothing essential 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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: the body must be 'the instructions only — not the SKILL.md front matter, the Inputs list or the Changing-this-skill section,' the reason should be one line for history, and description/inputs can be changed the same way. It does not elaborate on the nested arguments object, but the schema already documents it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Save a new version of one of this workspace's skills.' It clearly identifies the update semantics and distinguishes the tool from read-only siblings like get_skill and list_skills by emphasizing the change and the workspace-wide effect.

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 description gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it when the person asks you to change how a skill works.' It also adds a permission precondition ('Allowed only where list_skills shows access: edit') and explains the library-copy behavior. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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