aci_save_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It discloses that saving publishes to a shared library, re-saving corroborates, and improved versions supersede older ones only after proving reliable. It does not cover failure modes or exact visibility semantics, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three focused sentences: the first establishes the core purpose, the second covers versioning behavior, and the third gives selection guidance. There is slight redundancy between 'reusable' and 'reuse it,' but overall the description is compact and 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?

For a publish tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the type of content, side effects, and when to use it. It omits operational specifics such as how success is returned or how 'proves reliable' is determined, but nothing essential is missing for correct 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little semantic color by clarifying that the 'body' is a procedure, how-to, or prompt and that skills are declarative, but it does not meaningfully enrich the meaning of name, intent, tags, or author beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Publish'), the object ('a reusable, DECLARATIVE skill'), and the destination ('shared library so other AIs can find and reuse it'). It also explicitly contrasts the resource with runnable code, which distinguishes this tool from other skill-related siblings like find, validate, and remember.

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?

It gives practical selection guidance: save skills you worked out that others would reuse, and exclude runnable code from this tool. It also explains re-saving behavior and supersession. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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