generate_skill

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

The description implies a mutation operation ('Generate'), but without annotations it provides minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose idempotency, side effects, or what happens to existing structures. The parameter 'update_existing' hints at update behavior but is not explained.

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 short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It does not provide enough information to earn its place, as it omits critical details about parameters and usage context.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not clarify the output structure or the tool's role among many siblings. It lacks completeness for a tool that likely has important dependencies and side effects, such as needing the latent skill to be approved.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails entirely. Neither 'latent_skill_id' nor 'update_existing' are described, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. The description adds no value over the raw 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 specifies the verb 'Generate' and the object 'physical Agent Skill structure', and conditions it on 'approved latent skill', which clearly distinguishes it from many sibling tools like 'create_skill', 'propose_skill', and 'track_latent_skill'. However, it does not explain what 'physical structure' entails, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'create_skill' or 'promote_skill_recommendation'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the latent skill must be approved) or when not to use it.

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