remove_user_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that it removes a skill but does not disclose what happens if the skill does not exist, whether the operation is idempotent, or whether any permissions are required. Given it's a mutating operation, the lack of side-effect disclosure is a notable gap.

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, succinct sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the action and object. For such a simple tool with one parameter, this level of brevity is appropriate and every word contributes meaning.

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?

The tool has a very low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), so the description is arguably sufficient for a basic understanding. However, without annotations or additional behavioral context, the description leaves gaps about error handling and post-conditions. It is adequate for a simple operation but not fully complete in terms of user guidance.

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 schema provides 100% coverage, with the parameter 'skillName' described as 'Name of the skill to remove', which aligns with the description. The description does not add further nuance beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The parameter is straightforward and well-documented.

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 a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('specific skill tag') from the 'active profile', which directly differentiates it from sibling tools like add_user_skills, set_user_skills, and clear_user_skills. It explicitly indicates the scope ('specific' rather than all skills), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 implies usage only through the verb and object, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. For example, it does not state when to use this tool instead of clear_user_skills or set_user_skills, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. The sibling list and tool name suggest the use case, but the description alone offers no explicit guidance.

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