orquestra_enable_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful side effect — 'global' propagates the symlink to every harness — which is real value. It omits idempotency, required permissions, and whether activation fails on a non-existent skill.

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 front-loaded sentence with the primary action first and the scope caveat second. No filler or redundancy.

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 described. For a state-mutating, annotation-free tool the description is minimally adequate: it covers the notable side effect but leaves preconditions, permissions, and failure modes unaddressed.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: it explains the 'global' value's effect, but never states that scope defaults to 'global' (the schema's default), and says nothing about skill_id's format or provenance. Partial compensation only.

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+resource ('Activate a skill') and adds the scope dimension, which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from orquestra_disable_skill or orquestra_create_skill. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, so it stops short of a 5.

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 is implied by the verb pairing with orquestra_disable_skill, and the scope note hints at when 'global' is appropriate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites (does the skill need to exist first?), and no named alternative.

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