Create skill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing the permission tiers and the approval workflow that determines whether the skill actually exists. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g. what happens on a name collision or malformed frontmatter) or what the call returns, so it stops short of full behavioral 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then permissions, alternatives, and the target identifier. Efficient overall, though the closing playbook_id sentence largely duplicates the schema and could be dropped.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description never indicates what a successful create returns (e.g. the new skill id) or how to follow up. Everything else an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly — permissions, proposal mode, collision-check workflow, target playbook — is present.

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's only parameter content is restating that playbook_id is a UUID/GUID, which the schema already says verbatim; it adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (create a skill scoped to a playbook) and explicitly separates itself from update_skill and list_skills. An agent can identify this as the creation path without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the precondition for use (full or skills:write permission), the divergent behavior under skills:propose (saved as pending_review proposal), and routes the agent to update_skill for existing skills and list_skills for collision checks. This is explicit when-to-use plus named alternatives.

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