delete_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the preview-vs-confirm behavior and warns against unsolicited deletion. However, it does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether related resources are affected, or what happens after a successful delete.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff; the primary action is front-loaded and the safety constraint follows. The phrase 'with the preview's expected' is somewhat awkward but still concise. It earns its place by conveying the confirm workflow in few words.

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 presence of an output schema, return-value documentation is not required. The description covers the core preview-and-confirm flow and the explicit-consent requirement. However, the 'why' parameter is undocumented, and the exact role of 'expected' is under-specified, leaving gaps for an agent trying to construct a correct call.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains confirm ('preview unless confirm=true') and expected ('with the preview's expected'), and skill_id is implied by 'Delete a skill.' However, the 'why' parameter is completely unexplained, and 'expected' remains vague despite being central to the confirmation workflow.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a skill.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from other skill-related siblings like unlink_skill or install_skill. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from those sibling tools by name.

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 instruction 'Do not call unless the user explicitly asked to delete this skill' provides a strong, explicit condition for when to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it beyond the explicit-consent guard, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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