attach_skill_to_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, error behavior, idempotency, or requirements (e.g., what happens if the skill is already attached). This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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 a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It essentially restates the tool name in natural language without adding any useful detail, so it does not earn its place as a helpful description.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return value is, how workspace_id behaves, or any potential errors. The lack of behavioral and parameter context makes it difficult for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is only 33% (workspace_id is described, but id and skill_id are not). The description does not clarify that 'id' refers to the agent ID, and it adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 clearly states the action ('Attach') and the resources ('a skill to an agent'), using a specific verb and object pair. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like detach_skill_from_agent and list_agent_skills, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description does not mention that detach_skill_from_agent exists for the reverse operation, nor does it explain any context such as required permissions or state conditions.

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