update_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior — that skills with local customizations are skipped to protect tuning — and that the tool reports what was updated and preserved. However, it does not mention any side effects beyond updating, such as whether the update is reversible, whether it requires authentication or permissions, or whether it might break existing setups. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate disclosure but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded ('Pull the latest npm versions of all installed skills.'), and the second sentence adds a critical behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place, making it highly readable and scannable.

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 low complexity — one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations — the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, what happens to customized skills, and what the user will see as output. It doesn't mention prerequisites or error cases, but for a straightforward update tool this is sufficient. The only gap is the lack of a return specification, but the description already implies an output list.

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%: the single optional parameter 'skill' is fully described in the schema ('Update only this skill (optional). Omit to update all skills.'). The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already says. Baseline of 3 is warranted since the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 tool's action ('Pull the latest npm versions of all installed skills') with a specific verb and resource. It also adds a distinguishing detail (skipping locally customized skills) that separates it from siblings like list_skills or run_skill. The purpose is unambiguous and easily understood.

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 when to use the tool — when you want to update installed skills — but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives (e.g., 'use list_skills to view skills'). There is no contrast with sibling tools, so an agent must infer usage from the tool's name and context. This is adequate but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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