delete_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It provides no information about whether deletion is permanent, what happens to skills currently attached to agents, or any error conditions such as trying to delete a non-existent skill. This is a critical 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does. This level of brevity is appropriate for a simple delete 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?

Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and only partial parameter descriptions, this tool description is far too sparse. It does not explain the return value, irreversible nature of deletion, or side effects on linked entities like agents. An agent invoking this tool would lack critical context for safe usage.

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 schema has 50% coverage: the workspace_id parameter is described, but id has no description. The tool description 'Delete a skill.' does not help clarify what id refers to or its format. Since the description must compensate for the missing id documentation but does not, the parameter semantics are weak.

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 'Delete a skill.' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (skill), which distinguishes it from other delete tools that target different entities like issues or projects. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds no extra specificity beyond the resource name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that deleting a skill differs from detaching a skill from an agent, nor any prerequisites such as ownership or permission. The usage context is entirely implicit.

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