goclaw_skill_update

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 states 'update' implying a mutation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient—it lacks critical behavioral details like whether changes are reversible or what authentication is needed.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations. It earns its place but is borderline under-specified rather than concise.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success or failure, what 'metadata' encompasses beyond the schema, or how it relates to sibling tools. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (id, name, description, enabled) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'metadata' includes these fields, but it doesn't clarify semantics like format constraints or interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update a skill's metadata' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('skill's metadata'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'goclaw_skill_get' or 'goclaw_skill_list', nor does it specify what 'metadata' entails beyond the schema fields. It's adequate but lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons to siblings like 'goclaw_skill_get' for reading or 'goclaw_skill_list' for listing. It's a basic statement with no usage context.

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