link_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key side effect ('Writes now') and a scope boundary ('Does not edit role files'). However, it does not mention duplicate-link behavior, idempotency, prerequisites, or whether the project and skill must already exist.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first states the core action, and the second provides a valuable side-effect boundary. Both sentences earn their place.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the lack of annotations and near-zero parameter documentation leaves an agent under-equipped. It is not clear how link_skill differs from install_skill or link_stanza, what working_folder refers to, or what prerequisites must hold before invoking this tool.

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% and the description adds little parameter-level meaning. It implicitly maps project and skill_id to the action, but working_folder remains unexplained, and no constraints, formats, or relationships among parameters are provided.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Add a skill to a project's skills list.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like unlink_skill, create_skill, and install_skill, since the focus is specifically on associating an existing skill with a project.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes closely related tools such as link_stanza, unlink_skill, and install_skill, but no routing guidance is provided. 'Does not edit role files' is a negative boundary, not a positive usage criterion.

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