sumo_qa_preview_external_skill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the returned fields (resolved commit, content_digest, trust tier) and the fact that critical safety-lint findings block install.

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 and its key limitation, then the return contents, then the usage instruction. Every sentence earns its 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well by enumerating the key fields. The remaining gap is parameter documentation, which is absent given 0% schema coverage.

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% across three parameters (agent, skill, source), so the schema alone does not explain them and the description must compensate. The description says nothing about what 'skill' or 'source' accepts (e.g. URL format, skill identifier), leaving the agent to infer from defaults.

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?

States a specific verb (preview) and resource (external skill install payload) and immediately clarifies the scope with 'installs nothing.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the install sibling conceptually, though it never names sumo_qa_install_external_skill explicitly.

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?

'Show it to the user before they confirm the install' gives a clear trigger for when to call it. It implies the dry-run-before-install workflow but does not name the alternative tool or state when-not to use it.

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