create_skill

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that native sync is off unless the sync parameter is explicitly true, which is helpful. However, it omits other important behaviors, such as whether creation overwrites existing skills, authorization requirements, or potential side effects.

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, concise sentence (10 words) that conveys the core purpose efficiently. While very brief, it is not wasteful, though additional structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve clarity for a tool with many parameters.

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 10 parameters, a huge sibling list, and no output schema details (though exists), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain most parameters, differentiate from many similar sibling tools, or provide guidance on proper usage. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but does not. It only mentions sync behavior; other parameters like name, slug, scope, targets, etc., are not explained. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, and the high parameter count demands more guidance.

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 creates a canonical Agent Skill, with a specific verb ('create') and resource ('canonical Agent Skill'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_skill_draft. The mention of 'canonical' hints at differentiation from draft skills, though it doesn't explicitly compare to generate_skill.

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 minimal usage guidance, only noting the default sync behavior. It does not advise when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_skill_draft, generate_skill, or update_skill. No explicit context or exclusion criteria are given.

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