upload_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. It discloses the need for an API key and the lack of markdown support, which are important behaviors. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., overwriting existing uploads), error conditions, or idempotency, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise, using four short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action and follows with key details in a logical order. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description covers the main functional aspects. However, it omits important usage details such as error scenarios, the meaning of the 'auto' target, and prerequisites for the API key. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning by listing supported targets and noting that markdown is not supported. However, it does not explain the expected format of 'skill_zip' (e.g., binary, base64) or the nature of the 'api_key' field beyond 'platform-specific'. The default 'auto' target is mentioned but not elaborated.

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 tool's action ('Upload skill package') and the target ('LLM platform API'). It lists supported platforms, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'install_skill' or 'package_skill', which could cause confusion about when to use this tool.

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 mentions the requirement for a platform-specific API key and lists supported targets, providing some usage context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., upload vs. install), nor does it give conditions for choosing a target or handling the 'auto' default.

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