uninstallSkill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool uninstalls a skill but doesn't describe what 'uninstall' entails (e.g., whether it's reversible, if it removes data, permissions required, or potential side effects). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Desinstala un skill instalado') and includes necessary parameter context. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly stating it's a destructive operation).

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during uninstallation, whether there are confirmation prompts, error conditions, or what the return value might be. For a tool that presumably alters system state, more context is needed to guide safe usage.

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%, with the parameter 'skillId' documented in the schema as 'ID del skill a desinstalar, ej: owner/repo@skill'. The description repeats this information ('usando su ID (owner/repo@skill)') but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Desinstala' - uninstalls) and the resource ('un skill instalado' - an installed skill), specifying it uses the skill ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'installSkill' and 'updateSkill' by focusing on removal rather than addition or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'selectSkill' which might involve skill selection without uninstallation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the skill must be installed first), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'updateSkill' for modifications or 'findSkills' for discovery. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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