skill_manage

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds rich behavioral context: atomic primary write with frontmatter validation, best-effort mirroring, and action-specific behavior like auto-frontmatter for create.

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 well-structured with a summary sentence followed by a bullet list of actions. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value. Could be more concise, but front-loading the purpose helps.

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 complexity (7 parameters, multiple actions), the description covers all necessary aspects: action types, required parameters, constraints (pinned skills), and behavioral details. An output schema exists, so return values are not required.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing which parameters are required for each action, the format of 'content', and specific usage notes (e.g., 'frontmatter validation', 'old_string' vs 'new_string' for patch).

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 purpose: 'Create, edit, patch, or delete skills under the primary skills root.' It lists specific actions and differentiates from sibling tools like skill_list and skill_record by describing its write operations.

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 guidelines for each action, including required parameters and special cases like pinned skills refusal for delete. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools for when to use this tool vs. alternatives.

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