claude_skills_sync

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the tool mutates the filesystem, creates symlinks, and upserts a managed block in .git/info/exclude. This is detailed behavioral disclosure. It could mention whether changes are reversible or if specific permissions are required, but it is still strong.

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 three sentences long and highly efficient. Each sentence adds value: first explains the main action, second highlights the mutation, third provides context about scope and CLI mirror. No redundant information.

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 has two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation, files affected, and scoping constraints. It could optionally mention synchronous behavior or return format, but it is complete enough for effective use.

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 100% description coverage for both parameters (format and worktrees). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema is already comprehensive.

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 syncs Claude Code skills from the current repository into target worktrees. The verb 'sync' and specific actions (creates symlinks, upserts in .git/info/exclude) provide clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like claude_skills_clean or claude_skills_status.

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 implies usage context by stating it operates relative to the server cwd and is not cross-project. It mentions mirroring a CLI command. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like claude_skills_clean or claude_skills_status, and does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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