skills_install

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the installation destinations and the two supported formats, but does not mention file overwrite behavior, idempotency, or any side effects beyond installation. Some behavioral context is present, but key mutation details are missing.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, includes concrete examples of what will be installed, and specifies the destination paths. Every part earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what gets installed, where, and in which formats. It could be more explicit about the tool's side effects on the target directory, but the core context is complete.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their defaults. The description adds the skill names and target path details, which maps to the format parameter meaning, but does not provide substantial additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Installs'), a specific resource ('official MCS agent skills'), lists the exact skills, and names the target locations. This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which perform skill installation.

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 makes clear the tool is for installing official MCS skills into a local repository, which is sufficient context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps with this functionality, so the guidance is adequate.

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