skill_compile_ide_companion_asset_lifecycle_manifest

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the tool does not call Tripo, spend credits, or mutate Unreal, which signals safe, non-destructive behavior. It also describes the transformation it performs (planned prompts to manifest artifacts), giving the agent a clear model of the side effects—none beyond producing a manifest.

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 compact and every sentence adds value: the purpose, the conversion details, the non-side-effect guarantee, a KB pointer, and a usage example. It is front-loaded with the main verb and object, and the example clarifies invocation without redundant prose.

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?

The tool is complex with 5 parameters, but the description gives a high-level overview and a KB reference for deeper details. Since an output schema exists, return values are covered elsewhere, but the description does not sufficiently define the required input structures (e.g., what session_plan must contain) for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external lookup. The KB link mitigates this but is not self-contained.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only implicitly covers session_plan ('planned generated asset prompts') and placeholder_manifest ('placeholder replacement mapping'), and only via the example. Three parameters (manifest_name, write_manifest, preferred_provider) are not described at all, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and valid values.

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 uses a specific verb ('compile') and resource ('provider-neutral generated asset lifecycle manifest'), and clearly enumerates what the output contains (task contracts, gates, mapping, evidence). It also distinguishes itself from generation/mutation tools by explicitly stating it does not call Tripo, spend credits, or mutate Unreal, which helps an agent separate this from gen_* and mutation siblings.

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 when to use the tool by describing it as a compilation step after planning, and the example shows a concrete invocation with session_plan and placeholder_manifest. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions for when not to use it (e.g., actual generation should use gen_tripo_*), so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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