create_damage_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral characteristics but only says 'Create a damage-dealing skill (simplified)'. It does not mention whether this writes to disk, requires permissions, or how it differs from other skill-creation tools. The inclusion of 'simplified' is a hint but not an explanation of side effects or constraints.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. However, it is under-specified, making it efficient but not fully informative. It earns a 4 because it is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks any mention of return values, side effects, or the relationship to other skill creation tools. The schema covers parameter meanings, but the tool-level context is insufficient for an agent to fully understand when and how to use it.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, and it does not mention that 'dryRun' allows previewing changes, which is only in the schema.

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 with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('damage-dealing skill'). The word 'simplified' hints at a specialized variant, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_skill or create_healing_skill, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_skill or create_healing_skill. The description neither mentions prerequisites nor offers exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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