skill_register

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses append-only behavior and v3 mode-specific requirements, which are meaningful and likely safety-relevant. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but the disclosed constraints are more than adequate for selection.

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 entire description is one compact sentence that conveys the operation, the append-only constraint, and the mode-specific signing/test requirements. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description is minimally viable for selecting the tool, but with no output schema and no detailed manifest/files schema, an agent cannot fully infer return behavior or package structure. The v3 conditions are helpful, but important surrounding context is left implicit.

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?

The schema already documents signature and publisherKey, and the description adds that signature is required in trust mode and tests are needed in gate mode. However, the manifest and files objects remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving an obvious semantic gap.

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 states a specific verb (register/upgrade) and resource (skill), plus the key append-only invariant. This makes it clearly distinguishable from read/execution-oriented siblings like skill_search and skill_run.

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 clearly limits the tool to registration/upgrade and provides mode-specific guidance for trust vs gate modes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can select this tool appropriately.

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