propose_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the two modes (review vs decide) but does not disclose side effects of deciding (e.g., does it create the skill?), required permissions, or potential consequences. This is insufficient for a mutation-like operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loads the core purpose and conditionally describes behavior. No unnecessary words, each sentence serves a clear function.

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 the tool has two modes and an output schema, the description explains the core functionality but omits important context like prerequisites, side effects, or what happens after a decision. Could be more complete to match the complexity of the tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It provides meaning for the 'decision' parameter (omitted vs provided behavior) but does not elaborate on 'latent_skill_id' beyond the name. Some value added, but not comprehensive.

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 is for reviewing or deciding a latent skill proposal, with distinct behaviors based on the decision parameter. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_skill or activate_skill by focusing on proposals, but could be more explicit about the nature of 'latent skill proposal'.

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 implies usage for reviewing or deciding proposals but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like create_skill or recommend_skills. With many sibling tools, more guidance on context would be beneficial.

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