deleteSkillPermanently removes a skill by its UUID; if active technicians are still assigned, the request returns SKILL_HAS_MEMBERS (409), so unassign them first.
Delete a skill
Permanently deletes a skill. Returns SKILL_HAS_MEMBERS (409) if any active technicians are still assigned — unassign all technicians first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Skill ID (UUID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, so the description adds value by specifying that deletion is permanent, identifying the exact error code SKILL_HAS_MEMBERS (409), and explaining the blocking condition. This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.
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 substantive description is only two sentences, front-loads the permanent-deletion behavior, and includes the key constraint. The first line 'Delete a skill' duplicates the title and adds no real information, which keeps the score from being a 5.
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 one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the failure mode, and the required prerequisite. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret the primary error response.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter and already describes it as a Skill ID (UUID). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the full burden and the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently deletes a skill.' This clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like deleteSkillCategory and deleteTechnician, and adds a concrete error condition that defines the operation's scope.
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 gives clear operational guidance: it warns that the deletion will fail with SKILL_HAS_MEMBERS if active technicians are assigned and instructs the caller to unassign all technicians first. It does not explicitly contrast alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the precondition is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.