update_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'スキルを更新' is only a single verb phrase with no information about mutation semantics, required permissions, irreversibility, partial vs full updates, or response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 minimal (one phrase), but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. A single tautological phrase does not earn a high conciseness score because it fails to convey substantive content. The brevity costs clarity rather than enhancing it.

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 mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It should explain update behavior (partial vs full replacement, unknown-field handling given additionalProperties:false), what the response contains, and confirmation semantics. The complexity of the nested data object (9 sub-fields) with only 50% schema coverage means the description should compensate but does not.

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 50%: the nested 'data' object has well-described fields (name, tags, category, confidence ranges, etc.) in the schema itself. However, the top-level 'id' parameter is described only as 'エントリID (UUID)', and the description contributes nothing beyond the schema. The category enum values are listed, which is helpful, but the description adds no semantic context over what schema properties already provide. Baseline 3 for 50% coverage is fair.

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 'スキルを更新' (update skill) is essentially a tautology—it restates the tool name in Japanese without adding any specificity about what aspect of skills is updated, how updates behave (partial vs full replacement), or what the result is. Among siblings (create_skill, get_skill, list_skills, delete_skill), the purpose is clear enough as 'update,' but the description adds zero detail beyond the name itself.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't clarify whether this is for partial field updates, whether id must already exist, whether creating vs updating is distinguished (e.g., upsert behavior), or mention any prerequisites. The sibling context implies an update operation, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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