add_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that remote bytes are fetched and validated, and that profile syncing occurs by default. However, it omits details on authorization requirements, error handling, or irreversible actions.

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?

Description is a single paragraph that front-loads purpose and then provides conditional details. It is concise with no fluff, though it could be split for readability.

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 core usage and distinguishes from propose_skill, but lacks documentation for 4 out of 8 parameters and does not describe return values or error conditions. Given the complexity and missing output schema, more completeness is needed.

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 explains source, identifier, skill_dir, and sync_profiles, but overlooks version, profile_roots, discover_profile_roots, and verbose, leaving those parameters unexplained.

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 'Add a known skill from a source' and differentiates from sibling tool propose_skill by specifying that caller-authored SKILL.md bytes should use propose_skill, not add_skill.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use this tool for different sources (GitHub, agentskills, URL, local) and mentions that propose_skill should be used for custom SKILL.md. However, it does not explicitly exclude other siblings like update_skill or delete_skill.

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