update_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 lists the updatable fields (name, display_name, description, permission), which is helpful, but it does not explain whether the update is partial or full, how skill_id is used, or what happens on failure or invalid input.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the action and scope, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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?

Given the nested skill_json parameter, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the request/response structure, error behavior, or how the update is applied, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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%, but the description partially compensates by naming the updatable fields, which likely reside inside skill_json. However, it does not clarify the role of skill_id or the expected structure of skill_json beyond those four fields, leaving the free-form object ambiguous.

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 'Update a tool (name, display_name, description, permission)' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (a tool/skill) along with the specific mutable fields. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_skill or deploy_skill through the verb 'update', though using 'tool' instead of 'skill' creates minor ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_tool_and_assign_to_agent or deploy_skill. The only implied context is that 'update' indicates modifying an existing resource, but there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative references.

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