import_skill_md

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the result enters a moderation queue as pending_review, that nothing goes live, that malformed frontmatter is refused, and that a duplicate title produces a warning. It stops short of covering idempotency, permissions, or side effects on existing drafts, but the key behaviors are well covered.

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 information-dense with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, then covers parameters, error behavior, return values, and moderation flow in a logical order.

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 a tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains input requirements, validation rules, error handling, return content, and downstream moderation behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: path is the file to read, category is a slug from list_categories, and tags optionally overrides the file's tags. Every parameter is given meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema field names.

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 a specific verb and resource: it creates a draft skill listing from a SKILL.md file on disk. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_draft (manual creation) and export_skill_md (opposite direction) by specifying the file-based input source.

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 gives concrete usage context: it references list_categories for the category slug and explains that tags can override the file's tags. It also clarifies that this tool does not go live, implying submit_for_review is the follow-up, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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