Save skin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral detail: it writes multiple concrete files into the workspace at specific relative paths, and it refuses specs that contain errors. This goes beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the core action (compile and write) and enumerates artifacts compactly. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated or wasted.

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?

Covers the three output files, the optional review sheet, and the error-refusal condition, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It lacks guidance on when to call texel_validate first or how this relates to texel_save_family, leaving a small gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter fully. The description reiterates the meaning of 'sheet' ('optionally <path>.sheet.png') and extends the <path> parameter into the actual filenames written, which is some value, but does not add format or syntax details beyond the schema. 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?

States specific verb (Compile and write) and enumerates exactly which artifacts are produced: <path>.png, <path>.skin.json, and optionally <path>.sheet.png. The 'Refuses specs with errors' clause further sharpens the purpose against siblings like texel_validate.

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 spec must be valid ('Refuses specs with errors') and that sheet controls the optional output. However, it does not name alternatives like texel_validate (to check a spec before saving) or texel_render, nor state when to prefer this over texel_save_family. Usage is inferred rather than explicit.

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