update_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the optimistic locking (expectedVersion), conflict handling (409), and partial update behavior. It could mention that only drafts can be updated, but 'draft' is stated and implicit from the context of sibling tools like discard_skill_draft.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded: first states purpose, second gives critical workflow, third clarifies partial update. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 description is complete for an update tool with conflict handling and partial fields. However, it does not specify the return value or explicitly restrict to drafts (though 'draft' is mentioned). Given no output schema, the return behavior is a minor gap.

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 covers all parameters (100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining expectedVersion must come from a prior read and that fields should only include changed fields. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool updates a skill draft. The verb 'Update' and resource 'skill draft' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, read, and list 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 description provides explicit usage guidance: read first to get expectedVersion, handle 409 conflicts by rereading and retrying, and pass only changed fields in camelCase. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool.

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