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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden; it usefully discloses the post-deletion state (your fork disappears and the published version becomes available again). It does not say whether deletion is permanent or reversible, which is the main remaining gap for a destructive operation.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and the consequence immediately after; nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, ownership scope, and side effect. Only the reversibility of the delete is left unaddressed.

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% for the single slug parameter, so the schema already documents it fully; the description's phrase 'your own skills' adds only a small ownership constraint on which slug is valid.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (skill) with an ownership scope ('one of your own skills'), which plainly separates it from siblings like skills_get, skills_update, skills_fork and skills_create.

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 context of use is implied by 'your own skills', but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., skills_update or skills_fork) for agents that only want to modify a skill rather than remove it.

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