update_skill

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: refreshing source with only name, rejecting mismatched frontmatter, default compact sync counts, and the verbose option. It does not cover side effects or auth requirements, but for an update operation the transparency is relatively high.

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 paragraph covering numerous update modes and flags without excessive verbosity. It front-loads the main purpose. Each clause adds value, but the density could be slightly improved by splitting into bullet points for easier scanning.

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?

With 12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, the description is fairly complete for the main use cases. However, details on resources, sync profiles, profile_roots, and discover_profile_roots are missing, which may leave agents uncertain about those parameters.

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 adds meaning to many parameters (name, source, identifier, skill_dir, skill_md, reuse_existing_resources, verbose). However, parameters like resources, sync_profiles, profile_roots, discover_profile_roots, and version are not explained. The coverage is about 7/12 (58%), providing moderate compensation but with gaps.

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 'Update an installed skill' and distinguishes various update modes (refresh, new source, local, inline). It is specific about the verb and resource, and the sibling tools (add_skill, delete_skill) provide contrast, making the purpose 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use different parameter combinations (e.g., just name for refresh, source+identifier for new source, etc.) and flags like verbose and reuse_existing_resources. However, it does not explicitly contrast when to use this tool over siblings like add_skill, but the update context is implied.

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