Import a skill from git

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries real weight. It discloses the post-import immutability constraint ('read-only: edit the file in the connected repository instead') and specific failure codes (422 no git provider, 404 file not on branch), both genuinely useful beyond structured data. It does not contradict the write annotation, since the write is the import itself, not the skill's later mutability.

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?

Three tight sentences: action + source first, then the read-only consequence, then error conditions. Nothing is padding and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the source location, the immutability constraint, and the two most likely failure modes. The residual gap is parameter format detail for path/repository/defaultBranch, which the schema does not supply either.

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 only 25% — the one documented field (X-Orchestra-Account-Id) is fully explained in the schema, while path, repository, and defaultBranch have no descriptions. The prose loosely implies path is a markdown file location and defaultBranch identifies a branch, but adds no format guidance (relative vs absolute path, repo slug vs URL), so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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 (import) plus resource (skill) and names the exact source: a markdown file in the workspace's connected git repository. It also implicitly differentiates from create_skill by noting the imported skill carries the same frontmatter as a created one, so an agent can tell the two paths apart.

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 clear operating context: this is the right tool when the skill already lives as a markdown file in the connected git repo, and it explicitly redirects edits to the repository file rather than the tool. It does not compare against create_skill/list_skills alternatives, nor state prerequisites beyond the implicit git connection (which surfaces only as a 422 error code).

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