haops_transition_skill_pack

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses HTTP method and endpoint, unversioned nature, server-enforced state machine with 409 errors, 403 for system packs, and required config flag. This is comprehensive.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is slightly long. All sentences contribute value, though some could be streamlined.

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 no output schema, the description covers key aspects: action, errors, constraints, and parameter details. It does not describe the full state machine or return structure beyond verbose flag, but it is sufficient for an admin tool with clear error handling.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by explaining the lifecycle state machine, warning about the parameter naming (action vs status), and clarifying the effect of verbose. It enriches the schema meaning.

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 transitions a skill pack through its lifecycle (propose/publish/deprecate), specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like haops_update_skill_pack by noting that system packs cannot be deprecated and should use update instead.

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 explicit usage context: admin-only, requires ENABLE_COMPOSED_PROTOCOLS=true, and when not to use (system packs for deprecation). However, it does not address the overlap with sibling tool haops_deprecate_skill_pack, which may cause confusion.

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