install_skill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them (it writes a file and persists). It adds useful context beyond the annotations: the precise file path written and cross-session persistence, though it omits what happens on failure or whether the write is project-scoped vs global.

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 action and destination are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by rationale and persistence. Four sentences are close to ideal; the benefit list is slightly padded but each sentence contributes information.

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 single-parameter install tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what it writes, where, and that it persists. Only the return/failure semantics are left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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?

There is effectively one parameter (force), which the input schema documents clearly, but the description never mentions it or the overwrite/skip behavior. Per the baseline rule, when the schema carries the parameter documentation the description need not repeat it, so a 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (install the Salesforce MCP Server skill) and pins down the exact destination (.claude/skills/salesforce/SKILL.md), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from superficially similar siblings like package_install, but the Claude Code skill framing makes the intent clear.

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?

It conveys the benefit (domain guidance for the 40 tools, 5 prompts, 5 resources) and persistence, implying this is a one-time setup step for a project. However, it never states when an agent should call it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite such as being in the right project directory.

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