skill_usage_end

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this tool updates a usage record, requires a success flag, calculates duration, or handles invalid usage_ids. The minimal phrase gives no insight into side effects or requirements.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple mutation tool, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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?

The tool has a clear workflow (paired with skill_usage_start) and five parameters, but the description offers no context about how to use it correctly. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the lifecycle or expected behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient information for proper 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, including 'Usage ID from skill_usage_start' for usage_id. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'End skill usage tracking' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action of stopping a tracking session. It distinguishes from the sibling tool skill_usage_start, which implies the complementary action. However, it lacks detail on what 'end' entails, such as recording final results or updating a record.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites like calling skill_usage_start first to obtain a usage_id. The description provides no context for the expected workflow or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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