updateSkill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates an installed skill but doesn't describe what 'update' entails (e.g., fetching latest version, applying patches, restarting services), potential side effects (e.g., downtime, configuration changes), authentication requirements, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 directly states the tool's purpose and parameter format. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by explicitly mentioning it's for updating installed skills before detailing the ID format.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during the update process, what success/failure looks like, or any constraints (e.g., network requirements, version compatibility). For a tool that modifies system state, more behavioral context is needed to be complete.

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 single parameter 'skillId' fully documented in the schema as 'ID del skill a actualizar, ej: owner/repo@skill'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only restating the parameter format without providing additional context like validation rules or examples of valid IDs. 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 ('Actualiza' - updates) and the resource ('un skill instalado' - an installed skill) using a specific identifier format. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'installSkill' and 'uninstallSkill' by focusing on updating existing skills rather than adding or removing them. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential 'selectSkill' or other management 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the skill must already be installed), when not to use it (e.g., for initial installation), or direct comparisons to sibling tools like 'installSkill' for new installations or 'uninstallSkill' for removal. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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