create_skill

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

With no annotations, the description conveys key behaviors: it creates a draft (not a published version), validates fields, and returns the created object with id and version. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but is adequate for a create 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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately provide actionable details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 create tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: operation, input format, backend validation, and return fields. It could mention the draft lifecycle, but is largely complete.

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 describes the 'fields' parameter with an example. The description repeats the camelCase requirement but adds little new info. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action ('Create a new skill draft'), the required input ('fields' in camelCase), and the output (returns id and version). It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_skill or list_skills by focusing on creation.

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 implies the tool is for creating a skill draft but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., update_skill for existing skills, or request_publish_skill to publish). No exclusions or context are given.

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