skill_compile_ide_companion_editor_queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It candidly states the side effect scope: 'writes only a local queue file' and explicitly lists non-effects ('does not call Tripo or mutate Unreal'). It also notes the queue is deferred until the bridge is reachable. It does not discuss file overwrite behavior, path details, or failure modes, but the core side-effect boundary is unusually clear.

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 well structured: purpose, side-effect boundary, KB reference, and a usage example are each compact and relevant. There is no filler or repetition of the schema, and the most important behavioral constraint is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description provides enough orientation to select and invoke it: it names the source inputs, the deferred execution model, the local-file side effect, and includes a representative call. Some optional parameters remain under-specified, but the output schema exists and the KB pointer offers deeper reference, so the description is reasonably complete for a first invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains that a 'placeholder manifest or work order' is the input source and gives a concrete example mapping session_plan, companion_status, and placeholder_manifest. However, session_plan and companion_status are never semantically defined, and queue_name and work_order receive no dedicated explanation beyond implication.

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 states a specific action ('Compile a bridge-gated editor action queue') and a clear resource ('for an IDE companion session'). It further clarifies what the tool does with 'Turns a placeholder manifest or work order into durable editor actions' and explicitly distinguishes itself from callers/mutators by saying it 'writes only a local queue file; it does not call Tripo or mutate Unreal.'

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 gives clear usage context: it consumes a placeholder manifest or work order and produces actions that can run after the Unreal bridge is reachable. It implies when this tool is needed versus direct Unreal mutation or external generation, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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