aiworkers_skill_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's effect (writing files to specific locations) and mentions no authorization keys needed. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the file already exists (overwrite?), whether it's destructive, or any potential side effects (e.g., restarting something). The blank 'update' in the name hints at mutation, but without annotations, more detail on behavior would help.

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 a single focused sentence with a clear action, followed by the trigger condition and a useful note about keys. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no complex output schema (though output schema exists but likely just success/error), the description is fairly complete: it tells the agent what it does, when to use it, and a key prerequisite ('No existing key required'). It could mention what the output looks like (since output schema exists), but the behavior is straightforward enough.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter info since there are none. This is appropriate, and the tool likely operates on fixed paths or environment-derived context.

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 states the tool writes/refreshes SKILL.md into specific directories. This provides a clear verb (write/refresh) and resource (SKILL.md), and distinguishes it from aiworkers_skill which likely reads rather than writes.

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 explicitly says to call this 'to pick up the latest skill after a deploy.' This gives clear context for when to use it. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the sibling list includes aiworkers_skill, suggesting an alternative for reading skills. The 'No existing key required' note adds useful prerequisite info.

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