okx_configure_skills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that configuration is saved persistently, but fails to mention whether the operation overwrites existing skills, whether it is destructive, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence with an additional short clause. Every word earns its place, and the key information (purpose and persistence) is front-loaded without any fluff.

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 (2 params, complete schema coverage, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it. It clearly states the purpose and persistence, and the schema covers the parameters. However, it lacks some behavioral details like overwrite semantics, but overall it is adequate.

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 both agentId and enabledSkills clearly described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already structured, so 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 uses a specific verb ('enable or disable') and a clear resource ('specific skills for specific agents'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like okx_list_skills. It clearly states what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 (when you need to enable/disable skills) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It is not misleading but leaves the agent to infer context.

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