import_skill

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by localizing the danger: destruction only happens when replace_native/sync_after_import are enabled, defaults preserve the native source and skip sync, and repeated imports can collide with an existing canonical destination. That explains both the destructive and non-idempotent hints rather than merely restating them.

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?

Purpose and sibling routing are front-loaded in the first two sentences, then behavior and defaults. Dense but mostly earning its place; the return-value sentence ("Returns imported skill metadata, paths, warnings, and write references") is partly redundant given an output schema exists.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers routing, prerequisites, destructive opt-ins, defaults, and conflict risk. The only soft spot is the vague "requires initialization" reference, which does not name initialize_project explicitly.

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% and the schema already documents path, scope, category, visibility, replace_native, and sync_after_import with defaults. The description reinforces the safe defaults and adds the conflict caveat for repeat imports, but contributes no new per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema says; baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Import an existing native or local skill directory into canonical UMEM storage" gives a specific verb (import), a specific resource (skill directory), and the destination (canonical storage). The following sentence explicitly separates it from adopt_skill (register existing canonical dir) and create_skill (new content), so an agent can discriminate it among 38 siblings.

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?

Names both alternatives and the condition that selects each: external skill content → import_skill, existing canonical directory → adopt_skill, new content → create_skill. It also states a prerequisite ("Project scope requires initialization") that gates the default scope, which is exactly the kind of when-to-use context an agent needs before calling.

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