install_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses copying, writing config files, and the force option for overwriting. However, it does not mention potential side effects like backing up existing files, error states (e.g., missing permissions), or idempotency. The behavioral transparency is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 brief and well-structured. It starts with a one-sentence purpose, then a sentence on the effect, followed by a bullet-like list for parameters. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 two simple parameters and an output schema (which is assumed to explain return values), the description covers the main functionality, parameter details, and effects. However, it could mention reversibility (e.g., how to uninstall) or required permissions. It is largely complete but misses a few contextual details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides textual explanations for both parameters: 'target' lists allowed values with their corresponding config file paths, and 'force' explains its overwrite behavior. This adds significant value beyond the schema's type and default fields.

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 copies the b123d-drawing engineering drawing skill and writes config files for specified agents. The verb 'install' and resource 'skill' are specific, and from the sibling tools, this is clearly distinct as no other tool handles skill installation.

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 explains the tool's behavior and lists target agents (claude, agents-md, cursor, windsurf), implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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