promote_skill_to_playbook

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate the tool modifies data but is not destructive. The description adds important behavioral context: it refuses if the target file exists unless force=True, and it makes the result discoverable via get_playbook. This goes beyond the annotation signals, providing concrete failure conditions and side effects.

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 two sentences covering the main action and two key behaviors (refusal condition and discoverability). It includes a version prefix ('v3.1.0 M3') that is unnecessary and adds clutter, but the core information is front-loaded. The structure is logical and efficient, though trimming the version would improve conciseness.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations. The description explains the primary input (skill_id, task_type) through the file path, and mentions the force parameter. It also notes the post-promotion discoverability. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., success message, file path, or error), nor does it address prerequisites like the skill having a procedure. Some gaps remain for a complete understanding.

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 50% (task_type and name have descriptions). The description adds meaning for 'force' (clobber protection) and indirectly for 'task_type' (as directory). However, 'skill_id' is not described in either schema or description (though its purpose is inferable from the tool name). The description does not detail the 'name' parameter's use beyond what the schema states. Overall, it adds moderate value but does not fully compensate for missing parameter descriptions.

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 'write' and the specific resource ('skill's procedure as a playbook markdown file'), with a concrete file path pattern and the resulting discoverability. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_playbook' (retrieval) and 'record_skill' (different action). The version prefix is unnecessary but does not obscure the purpose.

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 limited usage guidance: it notes that the tool refuses on existing files unless force=True, preventing accidental overwrites. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use this versus other tools like 'record_skill' or 'update_playbook' (if such existed). The context is implied but not spelled out.

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