remove_skill

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further: it states the change cannot be undone, that it cascades to variants' skill groups and competencies, and that the response contains the removed item plus variants_updated. That is genuine behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: operation scope first, then the alternative-use rule, then the irreversibility warning, then the return shape. No filler and the critical scoping constraint is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still describes the return payload (removed item and variants_updated), and it covers scope, safety and routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters (name, profile) are already documented in the schema. The description only implies the skill is identified by name in the inventory and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (delete) plus resource (skill), and it names the exact scope of the operation: the inventory plus the variants' skill groups and competencies. An agent can distinguish it immediately from set_skill and other siblings.

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?

Explicit "use it only for mistakes" constraint, a named alternative (set_skill with level X) with the rationale (keeps gap reports honest), and a prerequisite (ask the person first). When-to-use, when-not-to-use and the alternative are all stated.

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