delete_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Delete a skill by ID' without mentioning irreversibility, potential side effects, permission requirements, or success/failure behavior. For a destructive operation, this is a significant omission.

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 short sentence containing only the essential information. It is extremely concise and front-loaded, with zero wasted words.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks critical context about the effects of deletion. It does not mention whether the action is reversible, what happens to associated data, or any other behavioral caveats. For a destructive tool, this is 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?

The single parameter skill_id is clearly required in the schema, and the phrase 'by ID' links it to the deletion action. However, the description adds little beyond the schema itself; it does not explain where the ID comes from or any constraints beyond the type string. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but not compensating.

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 uses the specific verb 'delete' with resource 'skill' and specifies identification by ID. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_skill, update_skill, and copy_skill, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It is a pure action statement with no context about appropriate invocation scenarios.

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