update_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by noting the update surfaces where_used and affects_projects, implying cross-project impact. However, it does not disclose mutability consequences, permission requirements, or reversibility, so coverage is only partial.

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 short, front-loaded, and stays focused on what the tool updates. The second sentence is somewhat vague, but it still adds useful side-effect information without wasting 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify which fields belong to frontmatter versus body, what 'why' is for, how where_used is surfaced, or what preconditions apply. The presence of an output schema helps but does not cover these semantic gaps.

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 for parameter meaning. It hints that 'frontmatter' relates to metadata such as description and 'body' to content, but it never explicitly maps the four parameters (skill_id, description, content, why) or explains the purpose of 'why'. Too much is left to inference.

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 names a specific verb ('Update') and a precise resource ('SKILL.md frontmatter and/or body'), making it clear this modifies existing skill content. It broadly distinguishes itself from sibling create/delete/get/list skill tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus get_skill, create_skill, or delete_skill. It does not mention prerequisites such as the skill needing to exist or when a user should choose this over alternatives.

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