Create a skill

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: skills are active by default and names must be unique within a category. It does not cover response shape or failure handling, but the annotations already establish the mutating nature of the operation.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by two valuable behavioral notes. The main redundancy is the opening 'Create a skill,' which repeats the title and tool name, but this is minor.

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 four-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and annotation support, the description adds the missing behavioral constraints needed for correct invocation. The absence of output/response information is a small gap, but it does not block correct use.

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 the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces that the skill belongs to a category and that names are unique, but it does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the already detailed schema.

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 a specific action and object: 'Creates a skill under the given category.' It also adds scope ('under the given category') and domain constraints (active by default, unique names), which distinguishes it from category-level tools like createSkillCategory.

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 implies when the tool should be used but never names alternatives or exclusion conditions. It provides useful context such as category scoping and name uniqueness, but an agent is left to infer the difference from the overall tool family rather than being told.

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