put_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: files stored byte-exact, verbatim, no frontmatter or template check, SKILL.md indexed for search, return format ({name, paths, commit}), and that it's for text files only. It does not explicitly mention whether the operation is destructive (overwrites existing?) or error conditions (e.g., missing SKILL.md), but given the constraints, the coverage is good.

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 concise, about 150 words split into two paragraphs. The first sentence immediately conveys the core action. Every sentence adds value: behavior details, comparison to write, usage instructions. No redundant or filler content. Could be slightly tighter, but overall efficient.

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 complexity (4 params, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete: it explains the required file structure, indexing, return format, and usage steps. However, it fails to cover the 'author_agent' and 'reason' parameters, and does not mention overwrite behavior or error handling. This leaves gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly in all scenarios.

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 add meaning. It does well for 'name' (implied in path) and 'files' (package-relative paths, must include SKILL.md). However, it entirely omits 'author_agent' and 'reason', leaving two out of four parameters unexplained. This significantly reduces the value added over the raw 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 states the tool's purpose: storing a runnable skill package (SKILL.md + scripts/templates) verbatim under shared/skills/<name>/. It specifies the required content (must include SKILL.md) and distinguishes it from 'write' which handles single markdown notes. The verb 'Store' and resource 'skill PACKAGE' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: it contrasts with 'write' (no frontmatter, no template check), explains the scenario (pushing a local package), and mentions that 'get_skill' can later install it. It also notes 'text files only'. However, it does not cover when to use this over other siblings like 'search' or 'list', which are less related but could be referenced. Still, the differentiation from the most similar sibling is solid.

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