Check and update the installed Edgegap skills

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses exactly what apply mutates (hand-copied skill files from bundled sources), which external commands may be run and under what gate, and that commands are merely listed when the env flag is off. It also states a negative safety fact: skill text is never downloaded by this tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the apply/no-apply split, then details. The middle sentences are dense and clause-heavy (nested parenthetical about npx/claude commands), but every sentence carries operational information rather than 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description says what the check produces (comparison of each skill with latest on GitHub) and what the apply branch does in both gated and ungated states. For a 2-parameter, 0-required tool that is complete enough to call correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description adds real meaning on top: apply=true implies file rewriting and updater execution rather than a passive refresh. The installed_versions semantics beyond the schema (hidden installs) are echoed from the schema but the interaction with the check is clarified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (check/update installed Edgegap agent skills) and enumerates the install kinds it covers (skills CLI, Claude Code plugin, hand-copied folders). It also carves itself away from siblings: 'The skills served by edgegap_get_skill need no update here.'

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?

Explicit when/when-not: 'Without apply it only checks and changes nothing,' 'With apply=true it rewrites...', 'Ask the developer before applying.' It also names the operator precondition (EDGEGAP_ENABLE_SKILLS_UPDATE=1) that changes what actually happens.

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