skill_activate

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'enable and optionally start MCP', which is vague because the schema has no parameter to control the 'optionally' part. It also does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites. This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the basic function but lacks important context, such as when to prefer this over similar skill tools, the exact behavior of 'optionally start MCP', and expected results. The absence of usage guidance and behavioral details reduces completeness for an AI agent selecting among many related tools.

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 coverage is 100% with skill_id described as 'Skill ID or name to activate'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides full parameter documentation.

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 verb 'Activate' and the resource 'a skill', and clarifies the meaning with 'enable and optionally start MCP'. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like skill_execute (which runs a skill) and skill_mcp_start (which specifically manages MCP servers).

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to activate a skill by enabling it and possibly starting MCP), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like skill_execute or skill_mcp_start. This is an implied usage rather than clear guidance.

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