skill_execute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses three behavioral traits: runs steps in order, automatic credential injection, and automatic redaction of sensitive outputs. However, it omits important details such as whether execution is synchronous or asynchronous, expected latency, side effects (e.g., state mutations), or error behavior if a step fails. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 short (two sentences), front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, and adds two key behavioral traits in the second sentence. Every sentence adds value, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing important usage and behavioral context.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides a minimal understanding of what the tool does and key behaviors. However, it lacks information on return values, error handling, synchronization semantics, and prerequisites. It is sufficient for basic usage but incomplete for complex or first-time use.

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 all 5 parameters with brief descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level details beyond what is in the schema, such as how slug is resolved or how step_overrides interact with other parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate, as description does not compensate for missing depth.

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 uses a specific verb+resource structure ('Execute a skill workflow by slug') and clarifies the tool runs steps in order with credential injection. While it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like skill_schedule_cancel, skill_create, skill_list, and skill_render by focusing on execution, the lack of an explicit distinction from similar 'execute' tools (e.g., tool_call) slightly limits clarity.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., skill must exist, slug must be valid), exclusions, or when not to use it. Given 5 sibling tools with 'skill' prefixes, the agent needs clearer direction to avoid confusion.

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