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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but description adds critical details: immediate permanent removal of skill, versions, files, access grants; no recovery; encrypted backups age out within 90 days; no longer accessible via product surfaces. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the key action. Every sentence adds value, with clear sections for consequence, alternative, and additional notes. No unnecessary words.

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's single parameter, existing annotations, and output schema, the description provides complete context: behavior, prerequisites (owner-only), scope (skill, versions, files, grants), irreversibility, and data retention policy. No gaps.

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?

Only one parameter (skill_id) with full schema description coverage (100%). The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what schema provides, so baseline score of 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 it erases a skill permanently, using specific verb 'erase' and resource 'skill'. It distinguishes from sibling 'archive_skill' by naming it as a reversible alternative, providing clear purpose differentiation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (permanent deletion) and when not (use archive_skill for reversible action). Also notes owner-only requirement and applicability to both live and archived skills, offering comprehensive usage guidance.

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