delete_skill

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

With no annotations, the description fully addresses behavior: it is destructive yet recoverable (soft-delete), requires reading the skill first for its version, and explains 409 conflict resolution in detail. This goes well beyond the parameter descriptions.

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?

Concise but information-dense. Each sentence serves a purpose: definition, recovery, version process, conflict handling. Well-structured and front-loaded with key information.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: soft-delete, recovery, versioning, and conflict types. It is self-contained and thorough.

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% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of reading the version ('read it first for its version') and the confirm parameter implicitly via 'Destructive, but RECOVERABLE'. It provides context 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?

Clearly states 'Delete a skill' and specifies it's soft-delete and recoverable, distinguishing it from restore_skill and list_deleted_skills. The description provides a specific verb and resource with important nuance.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (when you want to soft-delete), when not (if you need immediate permanent deletion), and alternatives (restore_skill to recover). Also gives detailed guidance on handling 409 conflicts with two distinct scenarios.

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