skill_install

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

The annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: resolution goes through skills.sh and its gen/socket/snyk audits, failing audits are blocked, and the unaudited GitHub path is a fallback gated on reachability. It still omits what gets overwritten on install and whether auth is required, so not a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences that front-load the action and source format before the audit policy. The audit sentence is dense but each clause carries distinct information, so only minor trimming is possible.

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 three params, full schema coverage, no output schema, and a destructive annotation, the description covers the audit/safety gate that the annotation does not. It is nearly complete, missing only install-target/overwrite and permission details.

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 schema already documents source, select_skills, and allow_unaudited. The description only restates the source format (owner/repo or full URL) and adds nothing about selection semantics or the unaudited flag 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?

Specific verb (Install) plus resource (skills) plus source format (owner/repo or full URL). It is clearly distinct from the sibling skill_remove and skill_list_installed without opening any 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?

States conditional behavior (fail-audit skills blocked, unaudited fallback only when skills.sh is unreachable) but never says when an agent should prefer this over skill_validate or superskill, nor lists prerequisites. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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