sumo_qa_execute_external_skill

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: it blocks on commit/digest mismatch and safety-lint failure, and it declares the returned body untrusted so it cannot override higher-priority instructions. That is meaningful context beyond the structured fields, though the failure/error surface and handoff format are not detailed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by blocking conditions and the trust boundary. No filler, though the middle sentence compresses several conditions into one line without much elaboration.

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 no output schema and three parameters, the description covers the trust/blocking behavior well but leaves gaps: what the 'execution handoff' actually contains, and the meaning of 'scope' and 'intent'. An agent can invoke it, but cannot predict the return shape or the parameter semantics.

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% for three parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters and does not. Only 'skill' is loosely implied by 'SKILL.md'; 'scope' (with its 'auto' default) and 'intent' are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Load an installed external SKILL.md') plus the outcome ('return the execution handoff'), which clearly separates it from install/preview siblings in spirit. It does not explicitly name sumo_qa_preview_external_skill or sumo_qa_load_skill_context as the contrasting alternatives, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Load an installed external SKILL.md and return the execution handoff' – the agent can infer it fetches a skill body for execution. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of preview when...' guidance, and the surrounding family (preview, install, rollback, load_skill_context) makes an alternative-selection statement desirable.

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