update_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a permission requirement ('Requires write permission'), but it does not describe what happens to existing data (e.g., partial vs. full update), the effect of missing fields, or the return value. As a mutation tool, this is a significant gap—the agent cannot predict side effects or response format.

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 two short sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids redundancy, but it is so brief that it omits critical context. It earns points for brevity, but the lack of substance prevents a 5.

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 5-parameter update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the meaning of optional parameters, the update semantics (partial vs. full), or the return value. An agent would struggle to use it correctly beyond knowing it updates by ID. The description is too sparse for the complexity.

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 description coverage is only 20% (only 'id' has a description). The description does not mention any parameters or explain what fields can be updated (name, logo_url, body_html, category_ids). The agent must infer semantics from field names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action: 'Update an existing skill by ID.' This specifies the verb (update), the resource (skill), and the unique identifier (ID). It distinguishes from siblings like create_skill, delete_skill, and get_skill by implying the skill already exists. It is not a tautology and is specific.

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 implies usage: you update when you have an existing skill ID. It mentions a prerequisite ('Requires write permission') but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like create_skill or provide exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than stated, and there is no guidance on when not to use it.

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