orquestra_delete_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the two concrete side effects (unlinking from every scope, relocating the vault folder to backups), which tells the agent the change is broad-reaching and recoverable-by-backup. It stops short of stating permission requirements, idempotency, or whether other scopes' references break immediately.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. Both clauses earn their place by describing the effect sequence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the essential behavior of a destructive-adjacent tool, leaving only minor gaps: the 'delete' vs 'archive' naming mismatch and the absence of any permission or scope-impact caveat.

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 single skill_id parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description; the description only implies a skill is identified. With just one required, self-evident identifier, this is a moderate rather than severe gap, but a note on accepted ID format would add real value.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Archive a skill') and immediately scopes it by describing the two-step effect (unlink from every scope, move vault folder to backups). It implicitly separates this from non-destructive siblings like disable_skill, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The description hints that the operation is destructive-adjacent by mentioning backups, but an agent still has to infer that this should be preferred over disable_skill only when removal is truly wanted.

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