create_skill

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. The description simply says 'create new skill' with no mention of mutation behavior, uniqueness constraints on skill names, whether creation requires an existing profile, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is an inadequate disclosure.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately brief, though perhaps too brief given the tool's complexity. As written it is concise, but it sacrifices informational value for brevity.

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?

This is a complex nested-object tool with 9 child properties in the data object, 0 annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage on the top-level. The description does nothing to explain return values, error conditions, uniqueness expectations, or the relationship between create_skill and its update/get/list siblings. Given the tool's complexity, a two-word description is clearly insufficient.

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 50%. The schema itself documents most parameters well (name, category, tags, evidence, metadata, confidence, importance, proficiency, years_experience all have descriptions in Japanese). The profile_id parameter is well-documented in the schema including scoping rules. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'スキルを新規作成' (create new skill) states the verb and resource clearly enough, so the core purpose is understandable. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like create_career_entry, create_achievement, create_project, etc., which follow the same create_X pattern. There is no additional scope or contextual detail beyond the tautological name reuse.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. It doesn't explain when creating a skill is appropriate versus updating an existing one (update_skill exists as a sibling), nor does it mention any prerequisites or profile binding requirements that exist in the schema (profile_id handling). Usage context must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.

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