Graduate a skill

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

Annotations only cover idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries real weight: it discloses the mutation of two files, what gets written, and notably what gets dropped (the offer that created the gap is NOT kept). This is exactly the side-effect context a mutation tool needs beyond its annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effects, then the precondition. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema needed and full param documentation in the schema, the description supplies everything else an agent requires: precondition, side effects, and the exclusivity of this workflow path.

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 term, level, category and evidence are already documented with format and enum meaning in the schema. The description only echoes 'level and evidence' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond that — baseline 3 applies.

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 ('confirms the user now has a skill that was in the radar') and names the concrete side effects (removes from gaps.md, adds to skills.md). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like record_gap and update_skill_level.

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 when-to-use ('only when the user confirms they have acquired it via certification, project or real experience'), explicit when-not ('never on your own initiative'), and states it is the ONLY path from gap to profile. Nothing is left to inference.

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