enhance_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It reveals modes and output length (500+ lines) but lacks critical behavioral details: whether the tool modifies the file in place, what happens if skill_dir doesn't exist or lacks a SKILL.md, or if the operation is destructive. This is insufficient for safe usage.

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?

Two sentences with no superfluous info. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies modes and output. Information is front-loaded and each word 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?

Given no annotations and 4 parameters, the description covers purpose and modes but omits prerequisites (e.g., skill_dir must exist, SKILL.md must be present), error scenarios, and side effects. An output schema exists but its content is unknown; description doesn't mention it. The description is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps for robust usage.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides context for three parameters: target (platform's model), mode (local vs API), and api_key (required in API mode). However, it fails to explain what 'target' values are acceptable or detail the mode options beyond 'local' and 'api'. Skill_dir is implied but not explicitly tied to the file.

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 verb 'enhance', the resource 'SKILL.md', and the method 'using AI with target platform's model'. It distinguishes between local and API modes, and specifies the outcome: transforming basic templates into comprehensive 500+ line guides with examples. This sets it apart from sibling tools like install_skill or build_how_to_guides.

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 explains when to use local vs API mode based on API key availability. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like build_how_to_guides, nor does it specify prerequisites or when not to use it. The guidance is limited to mode selection.

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