create_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key non-obvious behavior: damage is not formula-based but scaled by stat influence rates, and negative power causes healing. This is valuable context. However, it does not disclose other important side effects such as whether the skill is persisted, what happens on duplicate names, or if there are any validation constraints beyond the schema.

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 exactly two sentences. The first states the tool's purpose and scope, the second explains the critical damage formula. There is no fluff, repetition, or irrelevant detail; every word contributes useful information.

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?

Given the high complexity (23 parameters) and absence of an output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavior, but leaves gaps. It does not mention the return value, persistence effects, or how this tool relates to the specialized skill creation siblings. The schema explains each parameter well, but the description itself could provide more contextual guidance for such a complex tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the damage model: 'damage = power scaled by stat influence rates (atk_f/str_f for physical, int_f for magical)' and 'Negative power heals.' This clarifies how the influence rates and power parameters interact, which is not fully explicit in the individual parameter descriptions.

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: 'Create a new skill with full control over RPG::Skill fields.' It identifies the resource (skills) and the verb (create), and 'full control' hints at being the general-purpose creator, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the specialized create_damage_skill, create_healing_skill, or create_state_skill siblings.

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 phrase 'full control' implies this is the low-level tool to use when you need complete customization, versus the more specialized sibling tools. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over create_damage_skill, create_healing_skill, or create_state_skill, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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