Delete a custom skill

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description benefits from that lower bar. It still adds non-annotation context: only custom skills are removable, and the deletion is described as minor/re-creatable so no confirmation is needed — useful impact guidance for a destructive call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, then the constraint, then the confirmation policy. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter delete with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers scope, the id source, non-deletable resources, and confirmation policy. It omits only failure behavior for an invalid or non-custom id, a minor gap given the annotations.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'id' is a custom-skill id sourced from list_skills but adds nothing about the 'brand' parameter's semantics beyond what the schema states.

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?

Specific verb ('Delete') + resource ('skill') + scope ('CUSTOM skills', excluding built-ins and recipes), and it names the sibling that supplies the id (list_skills). An agent can immediately distinguish it from save_skill, get_skill, list_skills, and delete_playbook.

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?

Clearly implies when to use it (removing user-created skills) and states a hard exclusion: built-in skills and recipes cannot be deleted. It routes the agent to list_skills for the id, but gives no guidance on what to do if the id is unknown/invalid or on prerequisites.

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