repair_skills

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by disclosing what is NOT destroyed ('Does not delete canonical skills') and that no recovery snapshot exists, plus a safety instruction to inspect the plan first. It also explains the two-flag gating behavior and what the response contains, which the annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose, then routing, then flag behavior, then safety caveat — a sensible order with no filler. It is dense and slightly run-on across clauses, and the flag explanations partially echo the schema, but every sentence carries operational meaning.

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 destructive two-flag tool this covers everything an agent needs: prerequisite, alternative tool, flag gating, non-destructive side guarantees, absent recovery path, and response contents. With an output schema present, it is not obligated to explain return values further.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the interaction semantics — that remove_orphan_targets=false selects no action even if dry_run=false — which clarifies the consequence of the default state rather than restating flag names. It stops short of adding new format or edge-case detail beyond that.

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 pair and resource: 'Preview or remove orphan managed native skill targets across the project.' It also names the scope (project, orphan, native targets) and explicitly contrasts with the sibling cleanup_skill, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use ('Use for stale installations'), names the alternative tool and its narrower scope ('use cleanup_skill to inspect one registered skill'), and states a prerequisite ('Requires initialized project memory'). Both routing and preconditions are covered.

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