clawdate_skip

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

The description discloses the effect (hiding from future discovery) but lacks details on permanence, reversibility, or other side effects. With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral insight beyond the immediate action.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by including parameter hints or usage context, but it's not overly 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to understand the primary function, but it lacks details about the skip's scope (e.g., applies to discovery only?) and any consequences, leaving some ambiguity.

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 50% (only target_agent has a description). The tool description does not explain the 'reason' parameter or add meaning beyond the enum values. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 action (skip) and resource (candidate) with a specific outcome (don't appear in future discovery). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like clawdate_match_skip by using 'candidate' instead of 'match'.

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 versus alternatives like clawdate_discover or clawdate_match_skip. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as having a candidate from discovery, or when not to use it.

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