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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further: it says the deletion is permanent, the skill immediately disappears from the catalog, the idempotent behavior returns already_absent: true, and the response shape is binding_id with disabled: true. This adds meaningful behavioral context consistent with the 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?

Four dense sentences with no filler: action, behavioral consequence, idempotency guarantee, return value, and usage caveat each earn their place. The most critical information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries return value details (binding_id, disabled: true, already_absent on idempotent success). It covers prerequisites (finding binding IDs), side effects (permanent deletion, catalog removal), and recovery (enable_skill), leaving the agent with everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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% since binding_id is documented as 'Skill binding id from list_skills'. The description adds value by mentioning list_capability_bindings as an alternative source for the ID and explaining that the binding is what gets deleted to disable the skill, which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Disable one skill by deleting its capability binding' — a specific verb, resource, and mechanism. It also names the sibling enable_skill and clarifies that disabling is a permanent deletion, making the intent unmistakable and differentiating it from non-destructive alternatives.

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 explicitly states 'Use this only for permanent removal — re-enabling later requires a fresh enable_skill call,' which tells the agent when to use and when not to use the tool. It also explains the immediate consequence (no longer routed or executed) and references list_skills/list_capability_bindings for locating the binding.

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