Share skin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses a remote store, the exact short-link format returned, and a degradation path (long self-contained link) when offline. One tension remains — 'Store the spec on <host>' describes a remote write while readOnlyHint=true suggests no side effect — but since the write is external and openWorldHint=true explicitly signals outside interaction, the description does not actively deceive the agent.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, and the primary behavior (store + return short link) is front-loaded ahead of the fallback clause. Every phrase carries information an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, return details need not be spelled out, and the description still notes the link format and offline fallback. Annotations cover safety. The remaining minor gap is that it says nothing about what happens on a non-offline failure (invalid spec, server error) or whether produced links are permanent.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already points at texel://docs/spec and texel://schema/skinspec.v1 for the format. The description only restates the parameter ('the spec') and adds no format, size, or validity constraints beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb plus outcome: it stores the spec remotely and returns a short link that opens the exact skin in the studio, including the URL shape (/s/<id>). That is much more concrete than 'share a skin'. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with likely-confusable siblings such as texel_save or texel_live, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'share' in the title and by the link-producing behavior; there is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no exclusion ('do not use to persist locally — use texel_save'), and no prerequisites such as network/auth needs. The offline fallback is a runtime condition, not selection guidance.

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