deploy_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It mentions setting a connection ID but does not disclose side effects (e.g., persistence, state changes), required permissions, or response behavior. This is crucial for a potentially mutating deploy operation.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence gives a targeted usage hint. It is concise and free of extraneous content, earning a high score.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It fails to cover prerequisites, the deployment process, expected outcomes, or parameter interactions. The agent lacks critical context for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It provides a specific, actionable hint for openapi_spec (setting x-ibm-connection-id), but tool_spec is entirely unexplained. The description adds value for one parameter but leaves the other opaque.

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 action: deploying a tool from an OpenAPI spec. It identifies both the resource (tool) and source (OpenAPI spec), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like 'deploy_tool_from_url' or reconcile the 'skill' name with 'tool'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like deploy_tool_from_url or create_tool_and_assign_to_agent. The only hint is the connection-binding instruction, which is specific to setup but not comparative.

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