skill_remove

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags the destructive nature. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as permanence, dependency effects, or potential side effects. It simply restates the action without enriching the agent's understanding of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the intended action.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate to explain the action. The destructiveHint annotation covers safety context. It lacks only minor details about edge cases or prerequisites, but for a straightforward removal operation, this is sufficient.

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%, and the parameter 'name' is described as 'Skill name to remove'. The tool description reiterates 'by name' without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 "Remove an installed skill by name" uses a specific verb (remove) and a clear resource (installed skill). It directly distinguishes from sibling tools like skill_install (adds a skill) and skill_list_installed (lists skills).

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 implies when to use the tool: when you want to remove a skill. However, it does not mention any alternatives (e.g., deprecate) or situations to avoid using it. No explicit exclusions or usage context beyond the obvious action.

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