import_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'import' without addressing permissions, side effects, idempotency, or outcome. This leaves the agent unsure whether the operation is safe or mutating and what happens on success or failure.

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?

A single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and source types clearly.

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 simple tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It explains the core operation but lacks details on behavioral expectations, such as whether the import is additive or replaces an existing skill, and what the response contains.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the action (import) and the resource (skill), and specifies the source types (GitHub, ClawHub, or URL), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_skill that would create from scratch.

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 clear context on when to use this tool—when you have an external source URL—but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. The naming and sibling list imply distinction from create_skill, but no direct comparison is made.

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