skill.disable

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only mentions a 'persistent status overlay' without explaining consequences, reversibility, permissions, or effects on other operations. The implied persistence is useful, but important behavioral details are missing.

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 filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The vague 'persistent status overlay' clause costs some clarity, but overall the length is appropriate.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not necessary, but the description omits parameter meanings, usage conditions, and any warning about the mutation's persistence. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves an agent under-equipped to call it confidently.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the skill_id or version parameters. The phrase 'validated skill version' hints at version semantics, but it does not clarify the meaning of the optional version parameter, default null behavior, or required identifier format.

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 a specific verb ('Disable') and identifies a resource ('a validated skill version'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like skill.enable. However, the phrase 'through the persistent status overlay' is opaque and adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as skill.enable or skill.validate. The phrase 'validated skill version' implies a prerequisite, but there is no explicit statement about when disabling is appropriate.

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