mark_skill_materialized

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses side effects (stopping the nudge, appending a note, mirroring directories) and notes the 'best-effort' nature of mirroring. It does not discuss reversibility or idempotency, but the core behaviors are transparent.

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 two paragraphs with 4-5 sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then detailing behaviors. It is efficient but could be slightly tighter; every sentence contributes value.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (side effects, optional parameter, mirroring), and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers usage, behavior, and parameter semantics. It could mention the return format but that is handled by the output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'skill_path' by explaining its purpose and optionality, but 'thread_id' is not described beyond its requirement. The description covers one of two parameters meaningfully, leaving the other implicit.

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 the tool's primary action: 'record that a closed thread's insights were written into a skill'. It also explains side effects like stopping a nudge and appending a note. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'skill_record', which likely has a related 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to provide a skill_path vs leave it empty, covering two main use cases. It does not, however, advise when to use this tool over alternatives like 'skill_record' or 'close_thread', leaving some ambiguity.

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