FleetQ

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists action names (delete, guardrail, browser) but does not explain what these actions do, their side effects (e.g., hard vs soft delete), authentication requirements, or asynchronous behavior patterns.

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 extremely terse at two sentences. While each sentence conveys distinct information (action list and platform constraint) with zero redundancy, the brevity is arguably insufficient for the tool's complexity (14 parameters, 11 distinct actions).

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 high complexity (14 parameters, 11 actions) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain action-specific requirements, return values, error conditions, or the conceptual model of 'skills' versus other managed resources.

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%, meaning the schema already documents all 14 parameters adequately. The description lists the action enum values and notes the supabase_edge_function limitation, but does not add syntax details, parameter relationships, or clarify the unusual schema requirement that skill_id and name are required for all actions including 'list'.

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 'Manage AI skills' which identifies the resource, but uses the vague verb 'Manage'. It lists specific actions (list, get, create, etc.) which adds specificity, yet fails to define what an 'AI skill' is or how it differs from agents, workflows, or other sibling resources in this ecosystem.

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 provides no guidance on when to select this tool over sibling management tools (agent_manage, workflow_manage, etc.). The only contextual note regarding usage is the constraint about supabase_edge_function not being available, which is insufficient for tool selection logic.

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