claude_skills_clean

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly warns 'MUTATES THE FILESYSTEM', states that real files are never deleted ('Real files (non-symlinks) are preserved, never deleted'), and clarifies scope ('Operates relative to the server process's cwd'). This is exemplary transparency for a destructive tool.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: state the action, warn about mutation, assure safety, and reference related tools. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Remove' and contains zero fluff.

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 complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what is removed, side effects, safety behavior, cwd scope, and how to preview. No essential information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it safely.

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%, with both parameters (`format` and `worktrees`) already explained in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies per the rubric.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Remove the skill symlinks under `.claude/skills/` and the managed exclude block created by a prior `claude_skills_sync`'. It uses a specific verb ('Remove'), identifies the exact resources, and explicitly notes it is the inverse of `claude_skills_sync`, distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use `claude_skills_status` first if you want to see what would be removed.' It also frames the tool as the inverse of `claude_skills_sync`, clarifying when it should be used (to undo a sync) and when to use an alternative (status for preview).

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