generate_skill

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

Annotations only give the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false); the description goes well beyond them by disclosing exactly what gets written — skill content, native copies for enabled runtimes, and related state — plus drift protections under update_existing and the fact that warnings are returned for review.

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 most decision-relevant information (purpose, sibling routing, prerequisites) is front-loaded, and the sentences are dense with signal. It is borderline packed — six clauses in one paragraph — but almost nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still names the return shape (generation details, paths, warnings, write references), and it covers prerequisites, side effects, and the update path for a destructive writer. Nothing material for a correct call is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented; the description nevertheless adds real meaning by tying latent_skill_id to 'eligible latent ID' prerequisites and clarifying that update_existing updates existing generated content while retaining native drift protections. It stops short of adding anything not already implied by the schema fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Generate physical Agent Skill content for an approved latent candidate' — and immediately distinguishes itself from create_skill (new canonical content) and publish_skill (draft). An agent can select it without opening any sibling schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Use after proposal approval'), explicit alternatives with the conditions that select them (create_skill, publish_skill), and explicit prerequisites ('Requires initialized project memory and an eligible latent ID'). It also adds a pre-call caution: 'Review existing content before enabling updates or retrying.'

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