add_or_update_skill

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'updates profile + fit scoring', indicating mutation and side effects, but does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or any destructive actions. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences deliver purpose, source options, and usage context. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and when to use, but neglects explanation of 'category' and 'proficiency'. Return values are not described, though no output schema exists. Somewhat incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 compensate. It explains the 'source' parameter with values 'have | learning | pending', adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify 'skill', 'category', or 'proficiency', leaving gaps.

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 records a skill and updates profile and fit scoring. It specifies the verb 'Record' and resource 'skill', and includes source options. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, though no other skill tools exist.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you complete a project', providing clear context for when to use. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the tools list shows no other skill-add tool, so guidance is adequate.

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