Skill

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, the description somewhat contradicts the implied safety profile — publish is a mutation that creates/updates skills but destructiveHint=false suggests limited destructive impact. The description adds useful detail (invoke has no payload, publish requires body), but doesn't disclose side effects, authorization requirements (does publishing require special privileges?), or what happens on overwrite.

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 compact with clear action bullets, front-loading the two main actions. The 'Responses' section adds minimal value (no output details). Each line earns its place, though the response section is slightly wasteful given there's no output schema.

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 two-action tool with shared generic param semantics (id, payload, items), the description adequately splits the contracts per action. But it lacks details on: return format (what an invoke response looks like), error conditions beyond the implicit 422 mentioned in schema, and whether publish supports items/create-like batching. The output schema is absent, so return value documentation falls on the description.

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 coverage is 100% (all 5 params described). The description adds specific per-action parameter contracts: for invoke id=skill UUID or name with no payload; for publish id=none and payload={body,...}. This meaningfully supplements the schema, which says only 'see the tool description'. However, the generic schema descriptions already redirect to the tool description, creating some circular dependency.

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 specific verbs ('Invoke or publish Vruum skills') with distinct actions clearly enumerated. It differentiates from sibling tools by naming alternative tools (search, fetch) for non-executing tasks. However, it doesn't contrast against the many manage_* siblings, though the 'skills' subject matter is specific enough.

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?

The description clearly explains when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'To browse skills use search type='skills'; to read one without executing it use fetch type='skill''. This gives explicit when-not guidance. It also clarifies that invoke follows returned instructions in current context, which is useful behavioral guidance.

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