skill_manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It reveals atomicity ('Atomic primary write with frontmatter validation before disk hits'), mirroring behavior, auto-frontmatter handling, and the refusal of pinned skill deletion. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model.

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 front-loaded with a one-line summary and a behavioral note. Each action is listed in a bullet format with concise explanations. While slightly lengthy due to six actions, every sentence adds value and the structure is well-organized.

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 (six actions, seven parameters) and the existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers key behavioral aspects, parameter requirements, and action specifics. It lacks error handling or failure details but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains which parameters are needed for each action (e.g., 'Requires name + description + content' for create) and adds constraints like sub_path prefixes. However, the 'description' parameter is only mentioned for create, leaving its role in other actions unclear.

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 'Create, edit, patch, or delete skills under the primary skills root,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like skill_list and skill_record by focusing on mutation 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 details each action and its required parameters, guiding the agent on how to use the tool for specific tasks. It also notes limitations like refusing pinned skills on delete, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use.

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