Create OmniChannel / Field Service Skill

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds lifecycle context (must be assigned to agents) and outlines use cases, but it does not discuss permissions, duplicate-handling behavior, or the response format. This gives some extra context beyond the annotations but leaves important behavioral details unaddressed.

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 very concise: three sentences with a bulleted list of use cases. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes value. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, use cases, and a recommended next step. Annotations handle the safety profile. However, it lacks parameter meanings and expected output or error behavior, which is notable for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema. Overall, it is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33% (only skillName has a description). The description text does not explain what 'label' or 'description' parameters represent, nor does it clarify the difference between label and skillName. With such low schema coverage, the description was responsible for compensating, and it fails to do so.

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's function: 'Creates a Skill that can be assigned to service agents.' It then specifies two distinct use cases (OmniChannel routing and Field Service Lightning), which helps differentiate it from sibling create_* tools like sf_create_service_channel or sf_create_routing_configuration. The title also reinforces the scope.

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 context on when this tool is relevant: for skill-based routing and Field Service Lightning. It also gives a concrete next step ('assign it to agents with sf_assign_skill_to_agent'), which implies the tool is for creation only. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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