create_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'create', which implies mutation, but does not disclose whether the operation persists immediately, whether it can overwrite existing skills with the same name, any permission/auth requirements, or what a successful creation returns. For a mutation-oriented tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 one short, efficient sentence with no filler, which is commendable. However, it is so thin that conciseness borders on under-specification — it carries almost no information beyond the tool's name itself. It is not bloated, but earns only a middle score because brevity comes at the cost of useful content.

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?

This is an 8-parameter create operation with 4 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations. The description must carry substantial context, yet it offers only a one-line summary. It omits return values, duplicate-handling behavior, relationships to related_memory_ids, and when creating a skill is appropriate. Given the tool's complexity, the description is materially incomplete.

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 88%, so the input schema already documents the parameters well (e.g., name uses kebab-case, steps as one per line). The description adds little beyond the 'standardized' qualifier. The schema handles the parameter semantics, and the description does not meaningfully compensate for the ~12% uncovered or add value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a standardized skill from experience' clearly states a specific verb (create), resource (skill), and source context (from experience), which differentiates it from the sibling read/list/search tools (list_skills, get_skill, search_skill, get_skill_prompt). It conveys the purpose adequately, though it lacks any explicit differentiation detail about what makes a skill 'standardized'.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as search_skill, list_skills, or get_skill. No context is given about prerequisites (e.g., must have prior observations or memories) or situations where creating a skill is appropriate versus fetching an existing one. The 'from experience' phrasing hints at a trigger but does not state it explicitly.

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