claude_skills_sync

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states 'MUTATES THE FILESYSTEM', details the creation of symlinks and updates to `.git/info/exclude`, and notes the operation is relative to the server cwd and not cross-project. This is comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a short reference to a mirror command. Every sentence adds unique value—main action, behavioral details with all-caps warning, and alternatives with tool names. No wasted words.

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 2 optional parameters, schema coverage 100%, no output schema, and the description details side effects, scope, and reversible alternatives, the description is complete. The output format is already described in the schema. There is no missing critical information.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'target worktrees' related to the `worktrees` parameter but does not elaborate on `format`. The schema already adequately describes both parameters.

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 verb 'Sync' and the specific resource: 'Claude Code skills from the current repository into target worktrees.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning `claude_skills_clean` and `claude_skills_status` and noting that `claude_skills_status` inspects without changing anything.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: to sync skills from the current repo into worktrees. It explicitly names `claude_skills_clean` as the reverse operation and `claude_skills_status` for inspection. It does not include an explicit 'when not to use' section, but the alternatives are well-stated.

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