skillforge_execute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without mentioning side effects, whether it mutates contact data, async behavior, permissions, or what the execution entails. A skill execution could have broad effects, and none are disclosed.

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?

A single, direct sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has three parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too sparse to be complete: it does not explain what the input object should contain, what the execution returns, whether it is synchronous, or what the skill does to the contact. More context is needed for safe and correct use.

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 baseline is 3. The schema already explains skillId, contactId, and input at a basic level. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, especially for the nested 'input' object, but it does not need to compensate heavily given the decent schema descriptions.

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 'Execute a SkillForge AI skill on a contact' uses a specific verb and identifies the resource (SkillForge AI skill) and target (contact). It is clear enough to distinguish this tool from generic siblings like agent_execute, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as run_workflow or agent_execute. There are no context cues, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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