openclaw_skills_update

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

With no annotations, the description only states 'Mutates the gateway state,' which is minimal. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., skill downtime, dependencies), required permissions, or whether the update is reversible. More context is needed for a mutation 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 three short sentences with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action and a key side effect.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and mutation aspect but lacks details on return values, error conditions, and potential impacts. It is minimally adequate but not fully informative.

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 67%, but the description adds little beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'latest (or a specified) version' but does not clarify the format or constraints for the 'version' parameter, which lacks a schema description. The 'instance' parameter is already well-described in the schema.

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 verb ('update'), resource ('installed skill'), and the nature of change ('to its latest or specified version'). It distinguishes from siblings like openclaw_skills_install by specifying 'update an installed skill' versus installing a new one.

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 (e.g., reinstall, upgrade). It mentions 'mutates the gateway state' but does not give context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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