unlink_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Writes now' does signal immediate mutation, which is useful, but the description does not say whether the skill itself is deleted, whether the unlink is reversible, or what side effects occur on the project map. For a mutating operation, this is insufficient.

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 very short and front-loaded, with the operation stated first and no filler. 'Writes now' is a compact but meaningful behavioral note. The brevity is efficient, even though it contributes to incompleteness in other dimensions.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not required, but it still lacks annotation coverage, parameter explanations, and alternative routing. The description tells the agent what the tool does and that it writes, but not enough about prerequisites, side effects, or how the parameters relate to the operation. For a three-parameter mutating tool, this is incomplete.

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 by explaining the parameters, but it does not. None of working_folder, project, or skill_id are described. The parameter names are somewhat suggestive, but an agent still lacks essential meaning such as what working_folder refers to or how skill_id should be formatted.

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, 'Remove', and a specific resource, 'a skill from a project's map', which distinguishes this from related operations like link_skill or delete_skill. It is not a tautology and gives the agent a clear sense of the primary action. It could be slightly sharper about what 'map' means, but the core purpose is discernible.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as link_skill, delete_skill, or uninstall_skill. The phrase 'from a project's map' implies a specific relationship, but the description does not state when unlinking is appropriate, when it is not, or what alternative should be chosen instead.

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