Update Skill Invocation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/idempotency profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say what is changed, whether the update is reversible, or what permissions are required. No contradiction with annotations, but no added context either.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, reasonably front-loaded. However, brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 values need not be explained. But for a non-idempotent mutation tool whose core concept ('invocation settings' with assistant/user enum values) is undefined, this description is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently or know the effect of the change.

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 100%, so all three parameters (skillName, setting, value) are documented in the schema itself; the rule sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — in particular it never clarifies what the 'assistant' vs 'user' setting enum values mean semantically.

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 invocation settings for a skill') is essentially a restatement of the title 'Update Skill Invocation' with the word 'settings' added. It gives no explanation of what an 'invocation setting' actually controls (the enum values 'assistant'/'user' hint at who may invoke the skill, but this is never stated). It also draws no distinction from the sibling tools skill-display, skill-display-reset-override, or skill-config-set-static-mode.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. Given siblings like skill-display-reset-override and skill-config-set-static-mode, an agent has no criteria for choosing between them. No guidance is present at all.

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