skill_install

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, and the description adds context by detailing the clone/discover/copy steps. It does not contradict the annotation and provides a concrete picture of what the tool does, though it doesn't mention overwrite behavior or permissions.

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 tight sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose and source options, the second explains the process. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, annotation provided). The description covers the process, source format, and selection behavior. Minor gaps like error handling or overwrite semantics are not critical for an install tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters already well-described. The description adds a bit of context (source format example) but does not significantly augment the schema meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Install') and resource ('skills from a GitHub repo'), and also explains the mechanism (clones repo, discovers SKILL.md, copies to local directory). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like skill_remove or skill_list_installed.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (installing skills from a GitHub repo) and gives source format examples. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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