Manage bundled agent skills

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description goes much further by disclosing safety behaviors: 'Mutations default to dry-run, use exact manifest ownership, reject unowned conflicts and symlinks, and roll back partial filesystem changes.' This is valuable contextual detail beyond what annotations provide.

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, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second reveals safety mechanisms, and the third clarifies the scope. Extremely concise with no wasted words, and the most critical information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete given the complexity and the existing output schema. It covers purpose, mutation safety, ownership constraints, and exclusions. The schema handles parameter details and return values, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds beyond the schema by explaining the safety model that ties parameters together: dry-run defaulting, exact manifest ownership (relevant to force_owned_drift), and rollback behavior. This clarifies the intent of the parameters without repeating their syntax.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Safely inspect, install, update, or uninstall the small bundled tdmcp skill catalog for Codex or Claude.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many creative/network siblings, and the inclusion of 'bundled' and 'not a remote or arbitrary skill installer' reinforces its unique scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (managing bundled tdmcp skills) and gives an exclusion: 'Only package-bundled skills are accepted; this is not a remote or arbitrary skill installer.' It lacks named alternatives, but the field is so narrow that the guidance is effectively complete.

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