Load skin from link

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

Annotations already establish safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond that: the accepted link forms (full URL, bare id, studio link with #z= / #spec=) and the fact that the call is non-mutating loading of an existing spec.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by accepted-input detail and the return type. No filler or restated title 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a single-parameter read tool, everything needed to call it correctly is present.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'A share link or short id', establishing a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond that by enumerating the studio-link fragment forms (#z= / #spec=), which the schema does not mention.

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 gives a specific verb (Load) and resource (the spec behind a Texel share link) plus the motivation (keep developing an existing skin) and the return (spec JSON). It does not name any sibling, so an agent must infer that texel_get_example or texel_import_png are not the right choices, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 clause 'so you can keep developing an existing skin' implies the use context but never states when to prefer this over texel_get_example, texel_share, or texel_import_png, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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