updateSkillRevisionRename a skill revision or change its description. Works for drafts, the active revision, and historic revisions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| revision_name | No | Optional user-defined name for this revision. Pass null to clear. | |
| skill_revision_id | Yes | Skill revision ID. | |
| revision_description | No | Optional user-defined description for this revision. Pass null to clear. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the useful context that it applies to revisions in any state, but does not disclose additional behaviors like whether existing values are overwritten or if there are permission requirements. 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?
A single sentence clearly states the tool's action and scope. No filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for the simple operation.
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 simple update operation with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It could have explicitly noted that this tool only affects metadata and not file contents, especially given the sibling updateSkillRevisionFile, but the main purpose is covered.
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?
The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including the meaning of null to clear. The description does not reference any parameters directly, so it adds no extra parameter-level meaning; the schema is the primary source.
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 uses specific verbs ('Rename', 'change') and clearly identifies the resource ('a skill revision') and the fields it modifies ('name', 'description'). It also states that it works across drafts, active, and historic revisions, which distinguishes it from creation/deletion/promotion tools like createSkillRevision, deleteSkillRevision, and promoteSkillRevision.
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 provides implicit context by stating that it works for drafts, active revisions, and historic revisions, which tells the agent when it applies. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like promoteSkillRevision or updateSkillRevisionFile, so the usage boundaries are only implied rather than fully defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Despite detailed descriptions, many tool names are highly ambiguous, with multiple tools covering the same conceptual actions (e.g., acceptClarityCaptureSuggestion vs. acceptClarityTeamAssignmentSuggestion, or the many deleteClarity*Interview tools). The set is so large that distinguishing between, say, listClarityFolders, listClarityProcesses, and listClarityProcessSummaries requires reading deep into descriptions, reducing agent selection accuracy.
The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun (e.g., createClarityProcess, listAgents, deleteQueue), and is remarkably consistent across the 316 tools. There are only minor deviations, such as 'fileSuggestedClarityProcesses' (verb + adjective noun) and 'bulkUpdateCasePriority' (where 'bulk' could be seen as a prefix), but overall the pattern holds strongly.
With 316 tools, this server is extremely oversized for any single agent to manage effectively. The massive number of tools suggests poor modularization—many of these tools likely belong in separate, smaller servers focused on specific domains (e.g., Clarity, Pulse, Agent management). The cognitive load for an agent to choose from 316 options is very high, leading to frequent misselection.
The tool surface covers an extraordinarily wide range of operations across the Duvo platform: agents, runs, cases, queues, Clarity processes, skills, integrations, notifications, teams, and more. Most resource types have full CRUD and lifecycle management. Notable minor gaps exist (e.g., no tools for managing specific notification batch severities dynamically, and some interview management is missing batch operations), but for the platform's scope, coverage is impressively thorough.