Remove a skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is destructive ('Removes') and what the operation returns ('the verified skills state'), which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the skill must already exist, whether removal affects endorsements or other related data, or what error conditions may occur.

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 with the action front-loaded and the result stated immediately. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives only a basic picture: removal by URN and return of the verified skills state. It does not cover side effects, preconditions, or failure behavior, so while it is not severely incomplete, an agent is left with notable gaps for a write operation.

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 only defines skillUrn as a required string with no description, making this 0% covered. The description partially compensates by clarifying that the parameter is a 'profile-skill URN', which conveys it is not a generic skill ID but a URN for a specific profile-skill association. Still, it provides no format, example, or additional constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('Removes') and a clear resource ('a skill by its profile-skill URN'), making the action unmistakable. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_skill, endorse_skill, and reorder_skills, all of which concern skills but are not removal operations.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_connection, delete_post, or the other skill-related tools. It only implies usage through the verb 'removes', leaving the agent to infer suitability and prerequisites on its own.

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