Import a skill

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with non-destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds that authorization is 'board_or_agent', which is useful. However, it does not explain side effects, idempotency details, or what happens during an import (e.g., overwrite, merge). The additional auth info raises the score slightly but still lacks depth.

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 short and front-loaded with the title, but it wastes the first line by repeating the tool's already-known title. The second and third lines provide basic info (HTTP method and auth class) but could be more efficiently combined or expanded. It is not overly verbose, but it could be more structured.

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 (nested objects, required params, output schema), the description is insufficient. It omits details about the meaning of 'source', expected output, success conditions, and error scenarios. The agent would need to infer too much from the schema alone, which is not described.

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?

No parameters are described in the description; schema coverage is 0%. The 'source' field in the body is not explained, and the 'companyId' path parameter is only implied. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to guess parameter meaning.

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 'Import a skill' and provides the HTTP method and path, which conveys the basic action. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'pc_post_companies_by_company_id_skills' (likely create skill) or other import/export operations. The purpose is clear but vague, lacking specificity about what 'import' entails.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether a source file or catalog entry is needed, nor any indication of when not to use it. The description offers no context for tool selection.

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