skill_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one meaningful behavioral trait: 'Skills are injected into recall when matching trigger conditions are met.' However, it does not disclose side effects such as overwriting an existing skill, permissions, or what the create response looks like, leaving some opacity for a persistent write operation.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the action, the second explains the recall behavior, and the third gives the usage trigger. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 an 11-parameter create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select the tool and understand its role in the skill/recall ecosystem. It does not describe the return value or conflict behavior, but the schema fully documents parameters, so the gap is not critical.

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?

The input schema covers all 11 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no per-parameter semantics beyond an implicit nod to trigger conditions, but because the schema is thorough, no compensation is needed.

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 and resource: 'Create a reusable skill (SOP)' and adds source context 'from a successful task or conversation.' The parenthetical SOP clarifies the object type and distinguishes it from knowledge-related siblings, while the create action clearly separates it from skill_get, skill_list, skill_search, and skill_archive.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this after completing a non-trivial task to capture the workflow for reuse.' This gives the agent a clear when-to-use signal, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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