skill_manage

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'governed — every write is policy-gated + audited', which discloses policy enforcement and auditing. However, it does not cover idempotency, error handling, or return values. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant words. All information is front-loaded. Every phrase adds value: actions, resource, governance. This is an efficient use of space.

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?

Tool complexity is high (9 params, multiple actions, no output schema). Description covers core purpose and a key behavioral trait (governance) but omits details like return format, error cases, and parameter constraints. Sufficient for a basic understanding but leaves gaps for correct invocation.

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 67%, so schema provides some meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming actions; it does not explain how parameters relate to actions or indicate dependencies. For 9 parameters, more guidance is needed.

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?

Description clearly lists all actions (create, edit, patch, delete, write_file, remove_file) on the resource 'skill'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like skills_list and skill_view, which are read-only. Verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Description implies write operations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings include skills_list and skill_view, explicit guidance on when to use each would improve clarity. Currently, usage context is only implied by the tool's name and actions.

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