share_skill

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds materially: existing files at matching destination paths can be overwritten with no conflict check and no overwrite confirmation, there is no preview mode, operational content additionally needs confirm_operational=true, and writes go through a snapshot/audit pipeline. It also discloses the re-share behavior that updates registration and policy again, which is exactly the non-idempotent semantics an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the sibling contrast, then danger disclosure, then prerequisites, then return shape. Slightly redundant: registration updating is stated both in 'updates registration' and again in the closing sentence about re-sharing, though the latter adds the policy-reset nuance.

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?

Covers mutation risk, prerequisites, overwrite behavior, the missing preview mode, the operational confirmation gate, and the return payload ('shared skill, paths, warnings, and write references'), which is reinforced by an existing output schema. Nothing an agent needs before invoking this destructive tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters, including the category enum and skill_id_or_name resolution guidance, are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the operational/confirm_operational requirement and the resolvability constraint but adds no syntax or resolution detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Copy an existing project skill into shared repository content for collaboration') and immediately contrasts it with the sibling sync_skills ('distribute native copies without changing visibility'). An agent can distinguish this from import_skill, adopt_skill, or publish_skill using the description alone.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('deliberate sharing'), an explicit alternative with its distinguishing condition (sync_skills), prerequisites ('Requires initialized project memory and a resolvable project skill'), and a pre-call action ('Inspect existing destination files and remove private information before calling'). This is close to the full when/when-not/alternatives rubric.

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