delete_skill

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real value: the operation is a soft delete (archive, not hard removal) and includes an authorization model distinguishing user-owned from project-owned skills and editor vs owner/admin roles. It doesn't say whether an archive is reversible or what confirmation the caller receives, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the critical soft-delete nuance, followed by eligibility rules and then the parameter. No filler, and every clause conveys a constraint the agent would otherwise lack.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, its destructive-but-soft nature, and the permission model. The only minor omission is post-archive behavior or return signal, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does: skill_id is the editable skill id with expected formats 'user/...' or 'project/...'. That format hint is precisely what the bare string schema lacks, though it stops short of a concrete example id.

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?

States a specific verb (archive) plus the resource (one of the user's editable skills) and immediately disambiguates the operation as a soft delete. It also carves out what is out of scope (built-in and Unilytics skills), so an agent can tell this apart from sibling delete tools like delete_project_file or kb_delete.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions: only editable skills qualify, and project skills require the project owner or an admin, while editors may modify but not archive. It does not point to an alternative tool (e.g., update_skill for modification-only intent), but the when-not conditions are unusually concrete.

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