Install the bundled rive-design-guidelines skill into this environment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool copies files ('copies the bundled skill'), is idempotent ('re-running updates the skill to this server version's copy'), has scope-dependent behavior, and notes the auto-triggering effect. It could be more explicit about overwriting existing skill directories, but 'updates' strongly implies that behavior.

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 front-loaded with the essential action ('One-time setup: copies') and packs critical details into a single well-structured sentence. Every clause adds value: idempotency, scope, default, auto-triggering, recommendation, and alternative. There is no filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description comprehensively covers what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect (idempotent, scope options), and how to fall back if skill support is unavailable. All essential context is present.

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 100% — both 'scope' and 'projectDir' are fully described in the input schema. The description repeats these facts (e.g., 'scope=project, default') but adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'One-time setup: copies the bundled `rive-design-guidelines` skill ... into the client's skills directory'. It uses a specific verb ('copies'), names the resource, and explains the effect ('auto-triggers on future Rive work'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, all of which perform Rive processing or analysis rather than setup.

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 recommends when to use the tool: 'Recommended on first use of this server in a new environment'. It also provides an alternative for clients without skill support: 'clients without skill support can read the same content via the rive-design-guidelines MCP prompt instead'. This clearly conveys both when to use and when not to use, with a named alternative.

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