orquestra_disable_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait — that 'global' removes the symlink from every harness projection — but omits reversibility, whether other scope values exist, and any permission requirements for a mutation operation.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the scope caveat attached. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification for a mutation tool.

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, but that is the only gap covered. For a state-changing tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the missing scope enumeration, reversibility, and enable/delete disambiguation leave the definition materially incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'scope' parameter by describing the 'global' value's effect, but never enumerates the other accepted values (the schema shows only a bare string with default 'global'), and 'skill_id' is left entirely undefined.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deactivate a skill'), which is clear on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical siblings orquestra_enable_skill and orquestra_delete_skill, leaving the agent to infer that deactivation differs from deletion.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never says when to deactivate instead of delete, nor what prerequisites or state the skill must be in. The only conditional mentioned ('global') describes a side effect rather than when to pick this tool.

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