delete_skill

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

The description discloses that the operation is a soft delete (archive) and that built-in skills cannot be deleted, which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or failure modes, and annotations offer no safety hints, so the description only partially covers the needed transparency.

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 very concise, front-loaded with the main action, and uses a clear Args section. There is no filler or redundant information.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the undocumented config parameter is a notable gap. The description covers the core deletion behavior and skill_id format, but does not explain config or expected outcomes, making it adequate but not fully 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?

The description adds meaning to skill_id by specifying its format (user/... or project/...), which is not present in the schema. However, the optional config parameter is completely ignored, leaving one of two parameters without any explanation.

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 (archive/soft delete) and the resource (editable skill), and explicitly notes that built-in skills cannot be deleted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_skill or read_skill_file.

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 some context by restricting use to editable skills and excluding built-in skills, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or explain when to use this over others. Usage guidance is more implied than explicit.

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