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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and exceeds it. It discloses multiple side effects (process kill, registry unregister, Mongo delete, array removals, FS file deletion), the confirmation requirement, and the recovery mechanism. This is exemplary transparency for a destructive tool.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the irreversible warning, lists effects, then requires confirm, and ends with recovery. Every sentence serves a purpose; the length is justified by the tool's high-stakes nature.

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 complex, irreversible, no-output-schema tool, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers behavior, prerequisites (confirm:true), side effects, and recovery. It does not detail the return value, but that is not critical for a delete operation and the other contextual gaps are fully addressed.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds critical context beyond the schema by explaining that confirm must be exactly true and that missing/false values trigger a refusal with a recovery hint. This reinforces the confirm semantic and clarifies the destructive consequences.

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 that this tool deletes a skill with specific destructive effects: kills the MCP process, unregisters from the skill registry, deletes the Mongo record, removes from solution.skills[] and linked_skills, and deletes files from Builder FS. This specific verb+resource pair distinguishes it from siblings like ateam_delete_solution.

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 implies when to use: for permanently deleting a skill, with strong warnings about irreversibility. It provides a recovery path via ateam_github_pull and notes there is no per-skill restore, which guides against casual use. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or 'when not to use' beyond the destructive nature.

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