skill.enable

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a 'persistent status overlay,' implying the change is durable, but it does not disclose whether enabling replaces other versions, requires permissions, or has side effects.

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. It is appropriately terse, though the unexplained 'persistent status overlay' makes it somewhat cryptic.

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 two-parameter operation with an output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It omits lifecycle prerequisites, default behavior for version, and the meaning of 'persistent status overlay,' leaving an agent to infer important call semantics.

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 adds no explanation of skill_id or the optional version parameter. Crucially, it does not clarify what happens when version is omitted, how version selection works, or any constraints related to validated versions.

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 states a concrete action ('Enable') and a specific target ('a validated skill version'), which separates it from sibling operations like skill.validate and skill.disable. However, the phrase 'persistent status overlay' is unexplained jargon that slightly muddies the core meaning.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as skill.validate or skill.disable. The word 'validated' hints at a prerequisite but does not explicitly state sequencing, lifecycle context, or when this should be preferred over other skill tools.

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