skills.scaffold

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the two behavioral traits that matter — the file is seeded with default scope constraints and lands in a 'draft review state' — but omits whether an existing file is overwritten, what permissions are required, and where on disk it is written.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the created artifact and its state are stated up front. It is efficient, though it trades away some needed detail rather than padding.

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 file-creating mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, the description is too thin. It should disclose overwrite behavior, required auth, and the on-disk effect, none of which appear.

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 50%: name and description are undocumented in the schema, and the description never explains any parameter. The phrase 'default scope constraints' loosely relates to the noScope flag and 'path relative to cwd' is never addressed, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new SKILL.md') plus the resulting state ('default scope constraints and draft review state'). It is clear what gets produced, though it does not differentiate itself from siblings like skills.writeLocal or cloud.pullSkill that also create skill artifacts.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as skills.writeLocal (writing an existing skill) or cloud.pullSkill (fetching a remote one). The description gives no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name alone.

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