add_skill

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description needed to add behavioral context beyond that. However, the description merely repeats the creation intent without disclosing side effects, idempotency, permissions, or behavior on duplicates. The brief phrasing adds no meaningful transparency.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence—but sacrifices essential information. It fails to provide any structural details such as parameter context or usage notes, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise. Every sentence should earn its place; here, the one sentence does not carry its weight.

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's complexity (8 parameters, multiple optional fields) and the absence of parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of each field, required relationships (e.g., between steps and workflow), or typical usage patterns. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but input semantics remain unclear.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings and usage. The description does not mention any of the eight parameters (name, description, steps, tools, version, metadata, workflow, namespace). The agent has no clue what each parameter represents or how they interact, severely hindering correct invocation.

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 states 'Add a reusable skill/workflow block,' which clearly indicates the verb (add) and the resource (skill/workflow block). It is specific enough to distinguish from simple actions like 'get' or 'delete,' but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_policy' or 'learn.skills' that may involve similar concepts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_policy', 'search_skills', or 'learn.skills'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context criteria mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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