mixx_skin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: install writes to the 'Mixxx user skins dir', uninstall removes an installed skin, create_video_skin 'copies LateNight and adds VideoWidget entries', create_skin clones LateNight and recolors SVGs 'via inkscape-mcp', and patch_scheme targets installed|source. Destructive/creation consequences are disclosed, though permissions, reversibility, and side effects are not addressed.

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 definition is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by clearly labeled sections (PATTERN, OPERATIONS, Returns, Examples) that make scanning easy. It is somewhat verbose for a single tool, but each operation bullet carries distinct information and the examples reinforce correct invocation.

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?

For an eight-operation portmanteau tool this is close to complete: operations, prerequisites, defaults, and examples are all present, and an output schema exists so return details need not be elaborated. The main gap is the absence of any guidance on choosing this tool over its many siblings.

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 for nine undocumented parameters, and it does substantially: it maps query/tags to search, skin_id to uninstall/preview, name+prompt to create_skin, base_skin default 'latenight', scheme default 'daylight-v2', and target=installed|source. A couple of parameters (e.g. exact semantics of 'name' vs 'base_skin') remain lightly defined, but coverage is far above baseline.

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 names a specific resource and role ('Skin browser and manager for Mixxx') and enumerates all eight sub-operations with distinct verbs (list, search, install, uninstall, preview, create_video_skin, create_skin, patch_scheme). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like mixx_library or mixx_effects without opening any schema.

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 per-operation breakdown implies when each operation applies and notes prerequisites ('requires query or tags', 'requires skin_id'), which gives reasonable routing within the tool. However, it never states when to reach for mixx_skin versus surrounding siblings, and offers no explicit when-not guidance beyond the implied operation preconditions.

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