delete_skill

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 only states the action without mentioning whether deletion is permanent, if any confirmation is required, or what happens if the skill does not exist. This is a significant gap for a deletion tool.

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 is easy to parse and front-loads the verb. It contains no unnecessary words, though it is brief enough that it could arguably be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 simple nature of the tool, the description conveys the basic purpose, but it omits critical operational details like permanence, error behavior, and parameter identification. Since there is no output schema or annotations to compensate, the description is not fully complete for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 0%, and the description does not reference the 'name' parameter at all. Although the single parameter named 'name' might be self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify that the name identifies the skill to delete.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a saved skill/rule'), with a specific condition ('no longer useful'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_skill and get_skill, and even differentiates from delete_strategy by resource type.

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 phrase 'no longer useful' implies when to use the tool, giving a conditional context. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives, so guidance is limited to implied usage.

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