knitbrain_skill_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that same-name updates compound skills and that constraints propagate as guardrails. However, it omits details on idempotency, destructive overwrite behavior, and error handling, which are critical for an update tool.

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 three sentences with no fluff: purpose, update behavior, and constraints explained. However, 'telegraphic' is jargon that may require unpacking. Structure is efficient but could be more reader-friendly.

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?

Despite 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is brief. It lacks details on return values, error scenarios, and parameter formats. The tool's complexity (compounding, propagation) warrants fuller explanation for reliable use.

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 low (25%). The description adds meaning for 'constraints' as non-negotiable guardrails, but 'name' and 'body' lack description. 'Triggers' is unaddressed. The schema covers 'constraints' partially, but the description does not fully compensate for other undocumented parameters.

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 it persists a skill playbook and notes update behavior. It uses a specific verb 'persist' and resource 'skill playbook', distinguishing it from read-only siblings like knitbrain_read. However, the term 'telegraphic' is vague and not explicitly contrasted with other write tools like knitbrain_save_handoff.

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 implies use for creating/updating skills but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings. No alternatives or preconditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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