install_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add one useful negative side effect ('Does not copy into native skills/'), but it does not explain whether this mutates the project, rewrites configuration, resolves the pack, or has other important side effects. An install action with no annotation coverage needs more transparency.

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 concise at three sentences with no obvious filler. However, the first sentence is context rather than a clear action, and the metaphor 'Pull onto the shelf' adds ambiguity. It is short but not optimally structured for tool selection.

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 5-parameter install tool with no annotations, this is inadequate. It does not explain what 'working_folder' is, what a 'pack' does, when to invoke the tool, or what side effects to expect. The output schema helps with return values, but the description still leaves most of the calling context unspecified.

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, but it only loosely maps to project, skill_id, and version via 'This project uses one skill from a pack version'. It does not clarify working_folder or the optional pack parameter, and it never names the parameters explicitly.

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 action is only expressed as 'Pull onto the shelf if needed', which is metaphoorical and does not explicitly say 'install a skill' or name the resource being acted on. It mentions a project, a pack version, and a skill, but the intended operation remains vague and it does not differentiate install_skill from siblings like link_skill or fetch_pack.

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 phrase 'if needed' implies a conditional but gives no concrete criteria for when this tool should be chosen. There is no mention of alternatives such as link_skill, install_capability, or fetch_pack, and no when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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