Create a company skill

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutating) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method (POST) and authorization class ('board_or_agent'), which are useful behavioral details not present in annotations. However, it does not describe side effects, error cases, or response behavior, though the output schema may cover the latter.

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 short (two sentences), but the first sentence repeats the title. It is not bloated, but it fails to earn its space by omitting important parameter guidance. A 3 is appropriate for minimalistic but not wasteful.

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's complexity (many body parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain required fields, typical usage patterns, or relationships to other skill operations. For a creation endpoint, more context is needed for correct invocation.

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 0%: the description does not mention any parameters at all. With 14+ optional fields plus a required 'name' and path 'companyId', the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema. An AI agent receives no guidance on what fields are important or how to compose the request.

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 states 'Create a company skill', which clearly indicates the verb (create) and resource (company skill). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, get, patch, or delete skills. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related creation tools like imports or scans, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., company ID must exist), nor does it suggest using get/patch/delete for other operations. The only extra information is the authorization class, which is more behavioral than usage guidance.

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