skills-master-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate destructive (true) and idempotent (true) operations, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Removes the skill directory and associated symlinks from the agent's skills directory' clarifies what gets destroyed and the scope of removal. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides implementation details beyond the structured hints.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and implementation details. While somewhat verbose in repeating schema information, every sentence contributes to understanding. It could be more front-loaded by moving the 'Removes the skill directory...' sentence earlier.

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 tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about what gets removed and scope implications. Without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values, but the operational details are sufficiently covered for the tool's complexity level.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats parameter information (skills format, agent options, global scope meaning) but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Remove installed skills') and target resource ('from an AI coding agent'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'install_skill' and 'read_skill'. It provides a complete operational picture beyond just the tool name.

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 usage context through parameter explanations (global vs project scope, agent selection) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_skill' or 'install_skill'. No explicit guidance on prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios is provided.

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