delete_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 discloses a write-permission requirement, which is helpful, but it doesn't state that deletion is permanent/irreversible, what happens to related data, or the return value. This is a minimal disclosure for a destructive operation.

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?

Two short sentences totaling nine words. Every word contributes: the operation, the target resource, the identifier, and a permission note. No 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?

The tool is simple with a single parameter, but the absence of an output schema and annotations leaves the return type and error behavior unspecified. The permission note is useful but doesn't compensate for not describing the success/failure response. Adequate for a minimum viable definition, but an agent would need to infer or test the outcome.

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 100%, and the schema already defines the id parameter as a required number with description 'Skill ID.' The description only references 'by ID' without adding format, source, or lifecycle information. It meets the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 and resource: 'Delete a skill by ID.' Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_skill, update_skill, get_skill, and list_skills. 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 only usage guidance is 'Requires write permission,' which is a precondition rather than an explicit when-to-use. It doesn't mention alternatives like update_skill for reversible changes or get_skill for verification, nor does it note that deletion is permanent. Usage is largely inferred from the tool name.

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