add_digital_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two meaningful behaviors: the append semantics ('after those already added') and the Europass free-text pitfall. It could mention return values or error cases, but the key side effects are covered.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core action and then justify the one-per-call rule with a concrete reason. There is no filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every sentence 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 simple two-parameter append tool, the description plus schema covers required inputs, append behavior, and the main usage trap. An output schema exists, so return format need not be described. Minor omissions like duplicate handling are not essential for correct invocation.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates by clarifying that the skill parameter must be a single skill, not a list. It also reinforces the draft context via 'after those already added'. The draft_id and the optional description field are already adequately documented 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 states a specific verb ('Add'), a clear resource ('digital or computer skill'), and an explicit append position ('after those already added'). It also differentiates from sibling tools like add_language_skill and add_work_experience by narrowing the scope to digital skills.

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 gives a strong operational rule: make one call per skill, because Europass prints the field as free text and a combined call would be treated as a single long skill name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough.

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