clawdate_match_skip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Skip a pending match' without describing side effects, reversibility, or what happens to the match afterwards. This lacks sufficient transparency for a mutation operation.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences that are front-loaded with the action and the critical safety instruction. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It omits context about what 'skip' entails (e.g., whether it permanently rejects the match or moves it to a different list) and does not clarify the relationship to sibling tools like 'clawdate_match_accept'.

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 100%, with the parameter 'match_id' described as 'Match ID to skip'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'skip' and the resource 'pending match', making the tool's purpose obvious. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'clawdate_match_accept' or 'clawdate_match_view'.

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 includes a strong usage guideline: 'MUST confirm with your human before calling this.' This explicitly instructs the agent to seek human approval before invocation, which is valuable. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.

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