native_skills_bypass

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions a risk (routing fight) and explains the effects of the boolean, but does not detail side effects, permissions, or where the overrides are written.

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 two sentences, dense with useful information: purpose, behavior for true/false, and a risk warning. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-boolean-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the rationale, and a risk. It could mention what 'prior host file' refers to, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 parameter schema already has 100% coverage with a clear description of 'enabled'. The tool description repeats the same semantics without adding new information, so baseline 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 clearly states the action (write Claude skillOverrides name-only) and the purpose (to avoid dumping every skill description in the host listing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_skills and read_skill.

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?

It implies when to use the tool (to slim down host listing) and explains the two states (enabled true/false), but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives 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.