Delete skill

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by enumerating exactly what is destroyed (revisions, project grants, archive content), what is explicitly NOT destroyed, and the failure condition that blocks deletion. That cascade-boundary and blocking detail is exactly the context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the most important fact (the cascading destruction) is front-loaded. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: scope of deletion, non-scope, and precondition.

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 destructive two-parameter delete with no output schema and annotations already covering idempotency/safety, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide and act: cascade impact, blast-radius boundary, and the condition under which the call fails.

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 never mentions orgID or skillID, so it contributes nothing about parameter meaning. The names and regex patterns are largely self-explanatory, which keeps this from being a 1, but with both parameters undocumented anywhere the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (deletes) and resource (the skill) and immediately defines cascade scope: revisions, project grants, and uploaded archive content. This clearly separates it from siblings such as grant_skills_delete (removes a grant only) and skills_get/skills_list, without the agent needing to open a schema.

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 does not route the agent between this tool and alternatives (e.g. removing a single grant via grant_skills_delete instead of destroying the skill). It does, however, disclose a real precondition — deletion is blocked while an active agent references the skill — which is a usable operational guideline but not a when-to-use statement.

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