set_skills

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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, non-destructive local write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: every upgrade requires evidence, upgrades are confirmed by the person in a form, a cap of 10 per call, only affirmative answers are persisted, and the exact result fields plus the follow-up call needed when some were never asked.

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?

Purpose and sibling routing are front-loaded, then constraints, then the return/continuation contract - a sensible order. The text is dense and the mid-sentence line break reads awkwardly, but no sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the four return fields and prescribes the action for a non-empty upgrades_not_asked_yet, which is exactly what a caller needs to drive the loop. Nothing required to invoke or follow up is missing.

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, and the description still adds meaning the schema does not: the 10-upgrades-per-call limit, the human confirmation step, and that evidence is what gates a level increase. It does not restate per-field formats, which the schema already handles.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope ('Add or change several skills in one call') and immediately distinguishes itself from the singular sibling set_skill and from checklist_apply. An agent can select between the three without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use set_skill for one skill and checklist_apply for a marked checklist,' plus a concrete continuation rule when upgrades_not_asked_yet is non-empty. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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