generate_project_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so reasonably: it discloses write access, the concrete files created, and that AGENTS.md is modified. It does not say whether existing skill files are overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent, or what permissions are required — gaps for a mutating tool.

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-loads the action and its outputs, then declares access level and return shape. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is wasted.

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?

Output schema exists, so the return-value sentence is somewhat redundant, but the description covers the critical unknowns for an unannotated write tool: what is written and where. Missing overwrite/idempotency behavior and the prerequisite that rules be resolved first keeps it short of a 5.

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 in the schema, including the MERIDIAN_PROJECT_PATH fallback. The description only restates that output lands under project_path ('under project_path'), adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 (generate a Claude Code skill for a project) plus the exact artifacts produced (.claude/skills/meridian/<project_id>/SKILL.md, references/rules.md, AGENTS.md). No sibling in the list produces skill files, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 phrase 'from its resolved rules' implies a prerequisite (rules must already be resolved, likely via get_project_scope_resolution), but this is left to inference. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative tool is named.

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