Reinstalls an existing skill from its recorded Git source and reports whether the source commit has changed.
Reinstall an existing skill source from its recorded Git URL/ref and report whether the source commit changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the tool reinstalls from a recorded Git URL/ref and reports commit changes, which is meaningful. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, failure modes, or what happens if the source is unchanged.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently combines the action, source, and result in one sentence.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the core behavior and expected result. Still, it leaves source_id semantics, exact return format, and side-effect expectations implicit, so it is only minimally complete.
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 0% and the description does not explicitly define source_id beyond implying it identifies an existing skill source. It provides only indirect semantic value and no guidance on format, source, or how to obtain valid values.
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 action ('Reinstall an existing skill source'), a concrete mechanism ('from its recorded Git URL/ref'), and an observable outcome ('report whether the source commit changed'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like skill.install by emphasizing 'existing' and 'recorded Git URL/ref'.
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?
Usage context is implied: it is for updating an existing skill source, not installing a new one, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool over skill.install, skill.read, or other skill tools. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.