Install skill files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden itself and mostly does: it discloses the default non-destructive behavior (existing folders are skipped unless overwrite=true), and that the resource copies are always available. It does not describe what a read-only versus user scope does to the filesystem or what is returned, leaving some gaps for a write tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it does and where, followed by the resource fallback and the overwrite caveat. No wasted text.

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 zero-required-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, destination, idempotency, and an alternative access path. Only the return value and any permission requirements are unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 schema already documents scope, skills, and overwrite. The description adds the practical consequence of overwrite=false (skipped rather than erroring), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing beyond the schema about the skills filter or the project/user scope choice.

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?

States a concrete verb (copy) and resource (bundled RPG Maker skill files) plus the exact destination (.claude/skills) and the reason (so Claude Code picks them up). No sibling tool does anything similar, so it is trivially distinguishable.

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 makes the use case explicit (installing skills so they auto-load in a project) and names an alternative route: the same files are always available as rpgmaker://skills/<name> resources, so an agent can decide not to install. It stops short of an explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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