remove_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does disclose the removal location and metadata tracking, but it does not mention that removal is likely irreversible, what happens to bundles containing multiple skills, or what 'update metadata tracking' means in practice. This leaves important behavioral context implicit.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, location, and side effect in order. It contains no redundant or filler words and is easily scannable by an agent.

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 is a mutation with no output schema, and the description covers the action and location. However, it lacks indication of expected return behavior, confirmation of success, or consequences for bundled skills. For a destructive operation, more detail on reversibility and side effects would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters (skills, projectPath, removeFromConfig) are already fully documented. The description adds no new parameter detail beyond referring to 'specified skills or bundles', which mirrors the skills parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource ('skills or bundles') and the location ('.agents/skills'). It also notes the side effect of updating metadata tracking, distinguishing it from siblings like install_skills or sync_skills.

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 context makes the purpose clear—removing skills or bundles—and the verb 'remove' contrasts naturally with 'install' or 'sync'. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions (e.g., when not to use it).

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