company_skills_development

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers substantial behavioral context: it discloses the three pricing routes (training at the worker's cost rate, hiring into a role, contracting at market rate), the selection rule (cheapest route ready before peak week), the depth-risk heuristic (train when a worker is within reach, otherwise hire), and the output nature ('sealed' plan with who-trains-in-what-by-when). It does not disclose mutation side effects or reversibility, but the algorithm-level transparency is strong.

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 one enormous run-on sentence with multiple nested parentheticals and deep clause nesting (e.g., '(levels short at the worker's cost rate)', '(a depth risk trains when a worker is within reach and otherwise hires)'). The front-loaded 'Build the sealed skills development plan' is effective, but the rest is a dense, hard-to-parse wall of text that should be broken into structured sentences.

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 tool this complex — 7 parameters, 0% schema descriptions, no annotations — the description thoroughly covers the planning algorithm and decision logic. But it omits the bundle_json vs payload_json distinction, what operation values beyond 'build' are valid, and whether the tool mutates persistent state or is reversible. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the invocation-level ambiguities remain meaningful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add genuine meaning for payload_json by listing its contents (profiles, and optionally jobs, taxonomy, weeks, minimum_depth, licence_horizon_days). However, it leaves bundle_json, operation, entity_ref, now, and engine completely unexplained — a significant gap since the schema offers no descriptions and bundle_json vs payload_json is a confusing distinction an agent would need help with.

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 ('Build the sealed skills development plan') and then details exactly what the plan produces: inventory, capacity plan, priced training/hiring/contracting options, and a training schedule. The 'sealed' qualifier and build-oriented verb distinguish it from read-style siblings like company_skills_inventory and company_skills, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 its usage context by walking through the full workflow (build inventory, price options, choose cheapest route, schedule training), so an agent can infer it is the tool to call when a skills development plan must be produced. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as company_hiring or company_workforce_capacity.

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