install_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that files are written to disk, that confirm: true is required, that the default returns a preview with no filesystem changes, and the precise failure mode when no source skill exists. It does not cover overwrite/idempotency behavior for an already-installed skill, nor the role of license_key, which leaves some mutation semantics unexplained.

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?

A single dense sentence pair that front-loads the install action, then the artifact layout, then the confirmation requirement. It is efficient with no filler, though the nested parentheticals make it harder to scan than shorter, separated sentences would.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: destination, source lookup, fail condition, and the preview-vs-write gate. Gaps remain around overwrite behavior on re-install and the license_key parameter, both of which matter for a disk-writing tool.

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 all four parameters already have descriptions, establishing the baseline of 3. The description reinforces confirm's write-gate semantics but adds nothing about license_key (optional signed license path/JSON) or project_path, and the skill_id source-resolution path is only partly explained 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 names a specific verb and resource ("Install a Fredo QA skill") and pins down the exact destination (.agents/skills/<skill_id>/ with SKILL.md and LICENSE), the source of the copied file, and the failure condition. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_skills, get_skill_rules, and sync_workspace_skills, which do not write a new skill directory.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use context: a skill source must already exist in skills/<id>/ or .agents/skills/<id>/, otherwise the call fails, and confirm must be true to write. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to alternatives such as sync_workspace_skills for bulk syncing or list_skills for discovery, but the preconditions are clear.

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