run_skill

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

Annotations indicate only that the tool is neither read-only nor destructive. The description adds context about its role as an authorization/precedence step, but it does not disclose side effects, return values, or whether calling it multiple times has consequences. This leaves ambiguity about what 'authorize' entails.

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 two sentences long with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the purpose, and the second reinforces the critical timing. Both sentences earn their place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., an execution grant) or how the optional identifiers like skillId, skillRef, and executionGrantId should be used together. This leaves the agent uncertain about the outcome and the required parameter combinations.

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?

The schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only implicitly links the 'tool' parameter to the preceding-tool context without explaining specific parameter relationships or optional combinations.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Run and authorize an App-managed skill before calling its concrete App tools.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from siblings like find_skill by positioning it as a prerequisite step to concrete App tools.

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?

Explicit timing guidance is provided: 'Call this immediately before the tool that will use the skill.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool relative to other actions, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative approaches when already authorized.

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