skill_validate

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

Adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: what the record contains (mirror hashes, local-link findings, exact duplicates, semantic candidates), the important caution that "semantic candidates are leads, never automatic delete decisions," and the post-mutation obligation. It does not explain why readOnlyHint is false (what state validation writes or persists), which is the one behavioral gap left against the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then mode behavior, then the curator obligation and the semantic-candidate caveat. Dense but each sentence adds information; the enumeration of record contents is slightly list-heavy but earns its space.

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?

Return contents are well covered and an output schema exists, so the remaining gaps are the undocumented `include_archived` parameter and the unstated side effect implied by readOnlyHint=false. For a tool the curator is told to run after every mutation, those omissions are noticeable but not blocking.

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 carry parameter meaning. It fully defines `name` through the with/without-name mode split, but `include_archived` (defaulting to true) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Validate ThreadKeeper-managed skills") and scopes it across CLI consumers, then spells out both operating modes: a full deterministic record for one skill with `name`, or a numbered inventory without it. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like skill_list, skill_record, and skill_manage.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger — "Curator must call this after every skill mutation" — and explains mode selection via the presence or absence of `name`. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g., skill_list) for the inventory case, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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