add_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add a new skill' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate IDs/names, or what the expected response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'skill' in this context, what validation occurs, whether there are side effects, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of database operations and the lack of structured behavioral information, this leaves too many unanswered questions for an AI agent.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Add') and resource ('new skill to the database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'add_actor', 'add_class', or 'add_item', which all follow the same 'add X to database' pattern without specifying what distinguishes a skill from other database entities.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), what happens if a skill with the same ID already exists, or when to choose this over other database modification tools like 'update_database'. Usage context is entirely implied rather than explicitly stated.

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