maasy_create_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond a simple 'create' statement by disclosing the auto-generation of quick action pills and the loading behavior based on the user's tool. It omits details like permissions or error handling, but the disclosed behaviors are meaningful and helpful.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second elaborates on content and behavioral features. No redundant text.

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 create tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, content expectations, and a key behavior (action pills). It doesn't mention return values or prerequisites, but the schema and sibling context fill in some gaps. Overall, it is fairly 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 input schema already has high coverage (86%), with descriptions for most parameters. The description adds some context about the content parameter ('actionable marketing knowledge in markdown') but does not clarify undocumented parameters like priority and max_tokens. This is consistent with a baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 'Create a new knowledge skill for maasy' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like maasy_update_skill and maasy_list_skills by focusing on creation and adds relevant context about markdown content and action pills.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to create a new skill, with guidance on the type of content to include ('actionable marketing knowledge in markdown — frameworks, checklists, strategies'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the sibling tool names make the context clear.

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