Manage bundled agent skills

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing concrete safety behaviors: mutations default to dry-run, exact manifest ownership, rejection of unowned conflicts and symlinks, and rollback of partial filesystem changes. This complements the destructiveHint annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Two sentences carry a high information density: purpose, constraints, safety model, and exclusions. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 rich input schema, explicit annotations, and output schema, the description is complete enough. It conveys the tool's safety model, scope limitations, and host applicability, leaving parameter syntax and return values to the schemas where they already live.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context by reinforcing the dry-run default, explaining manifest ownership semantics, and bounding acceptable skills to package-bundled items, which helps interpret the 'skills' and 'dry_run' parameters 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 opens with a specific verb set ('Safely inspect, install, update, or uninstall') tied to a precise resource ('the small bundled tdmcp skill catalog for Codex or Claude'). It clearly distinguishes itself from generic installers by stating 'this is not a remote or arbitrary skill installer.'

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 clearly establishes scope: only package-bundled skills are managed, and it explicitly says it is not a remote/arbitrary installer. However, it doesn't name a specific sibling tool as an alternative, so the 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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