skills_update

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

Annotations confirm idempotence and non-destructiveness, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Update'. It does not disclose what happens on partial updates, error handling, or side effects.

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 states the core purpose. However, it lacks structure and could be expanded to include parameter hints or usage notes without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (8 params, nested objects, enums) and lack of output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, update behavior, or parameter semantics.

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 provides no explanation for any of the 8 parameters (id, body, name, model, description, input_schema, llm_provider, save_to_space_id). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'Skill', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like skills_create (create) and skills_delete (delete). The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the skill ID) or scenarios where update is appropriate over create/delete/run.

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