agy_install_skill

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it writes SKILL.md and registers in .skill-lock.json, and provides the return format. However, it does not mention that updating overwrites existing content, whether it requires specific permissions, or any other side effects. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a return format and a clear example, both adding value without verbosity. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 output schema (return format provided) and the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the essentials: what it does, how to call it via example, and what it returns. It does not elaborate on prerequisites, error handling, or overwrite behavior, but is not critically incomplete. A 3 is appropriate.

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. It provides an example call (agy_install_skill("my-skill", "# My Skill...")) which implies skill_name and content, but does not explicitly define either parameter, nor does it explain the optional ctx parameter. The example is helpful but does not fully compensate for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 'Create or update a skill by writing its SKILL.md' and mentions registration in .skill-lock.json. It uses a specific verb (create/update) and resource (skill), and is distinct from siblings like agy_list_skills, agy_read_skill, and agy_delete_skill. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither lists sibling tools nor explains conditions for choosing it over agy_install_skill_from_github or other write operations. Usage context is only implicit from the verb 'create or update'.

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