edict_import_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'validating its checksum' which adds some context, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, what happens on successful import/execution, error conditions, or side effects. For a tool that imports and executes WASM packages, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the important checksum validation constraint. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more context given the tool's complexity.

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 that imports and executes WASM packages with 2 complex parameters (one being a deeply nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after import/execution, what the tool returns, error handling, security implications, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. The description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered for such a potentially impactful operation.

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 description provides no parameter-specific information beyond the tool's overall purpose. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly: the 'skill' object with its nested structure and the optional 'limits' object with execution constraints. The description doesn't add value beyond what the schema provides, but doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps either.

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 purpose: 'Import and execute a compiled Edict WASM skill package, validating its checksum.' It specifies the verb ('import and execute'), resource ('compiled Edict WASM skill package'), and an important constraint ('validating its checksum'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like edict_import_skill vs edict_invoke_skill or edict_deploy), which prevents a perfect score.

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. With 22 sibling tools including edict_deploy, edict_invoke_skill, and edict_run, there's no indication of when this import/execution tool is appropriate versus those other execution-related tools. The description is purely functional without any contextual guidance.

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