update_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits. 'Update a skill.' reveals nothing about what happens during the update, whether it is idempotent, what the response looks like, or if certain fields are required. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation 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 sentence, but it is severely under-specified rather than concisely informative. It fails to provide essential context, and the brevity is not a positive trait because it omits critical information about parameters and behavior.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter (patch) and no output schema, yet the description gives zero guidance on how to use it. There are no annotations to provide safety or mutation context. Overall, the description is completely inadequate for a tool with this complexity and no structured safety net.

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 covers only 33% of parameters with descriptions (only workspace_id has a description). The description does not compensate by explaining the 'id' or 'patch' parameters, nor does it clarify the structure of the dynamic patch object. The agent has no additional meaning beyond the bare schema types, making it impossible to construct a valid request correctly.

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 'Update a skill.' directly restates the tool name without adding any new information about scope or specific behavior. It is essentially a tautology of the tool name, providing no detail about what 'update' entails or what distinguishes this from other update tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_skill, delete_skill, or import_skill. There is no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any decision support.

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