skill_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Register' implies a write operation, but side effects, idempotency, permissions, and return values are completely unexplored. The description is a bare phrase with no behavioral context.

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 only one short sentence, but it is not appropriately sized because it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks necessary details and does not earn its place with useful information. A concise description should still convey essential usage 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?

With 5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is drastically insufficient. It does not explain what happens on success, how the tool behaves, or how it fits into the skill management workflow. The description is effectively a single phrase and fails to provide any contextual depth.

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 schema provides basic field names and descriptions (e.g., 'Skill name', 'Source (e.g., "plugin:evolve@evolve-plugin")'), but the tool description itself adds no additional meaning about how parameters relate or are used. The schema descriptions are sufficient for a baseline, but nothing extra is contributed.

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 'Register a skill installation' uses a verb and resource, but 'register' is vague and doesn't specify what the action entails or how it differs from sibling tools like skill_usage_start or skill_recommend. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the specificity to fully distinguish the tool's purpose.

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 vs alternatives. The description only implies it is for recording an installation, but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools. This is insufficient for an agent to choose it confidently over sibling tools.

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