import_skills

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: says imported skills enter the review inbox unless approve=true, that repeating the same import creates duplicates (the concrete consequence behind idempotentHint=false), and that agent auth is required when the agent has a registered key. The auth and inbox-routing details can't be inferred from the annotation flags.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and parsing rule, then side effects, then auth. Every sentence carries operational information; nothing is redundant filler.

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 6-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers creation behavior, skip rules, duplicate risk, inbox routing, and auth. It omits what the call returns (counts, per-skill errors) and how namespace scoping affects results, which leaves a modest 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds parsing semantics not in the schema: sections without steps are skipped, and headings define skill boundaries. It covers markdown/approve/auth but says nothing about namespace, fallback_title, or agent_id, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Import skills from a Markdown SOP document') with the parsing model spelled out (headings become skills, trigger:/verification: metadata, list-item steps). This clearly separates it from siblings like save_memory or extract_memories, which create skills from other sources.

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?

States the applicable input form (Markdown SOP document) and discloses the routing decision point (review inbox unless approve=true) plus a duplicate-import caveat. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative such as extract_memories for non-SOP text, so it does not reach a full 5.

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