haops_update_skill

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the atomic transaction behavior, the no-op handling (mirroring PATCH semantics), the requirement for at least one mutable field, admin-only access control, and the feature gate (ENABLE_COMPOSED_PROTOCOLS). No contradictions exist.

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 a compact three sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and API endpoint. The second covers version bump and no-op behavior. The third specifies mandatory fields and access constraints. It is well-organized, front-loaded, and every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, admin-only, version bump logic, cascade behavior), the description covers key aspects: the endpoint, atomicity, no-op handling, field requirement, return behavior (compact vs full response via verbose param), and access control. It does not mention error cases or validation, but the schema and context signals fill some gaps. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating 'At least one mutable field must be supplied,' which is not explicitly in the schema (only name is required). It also enhances the cascade parameter's explanation. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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's purpose: 'Publish a new version of an existing skill' with the underlying API call. It specifies the action (publish/update), the resource (existing skill), and the effect (server bumps version in a single transaction). This distinguishes it from related tools like haops_create_skill and haops_deprecate_skill.

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 contextual guidance: it explains the no-op behavior (no field difference means no version bump), requires at least one mutable field, and notes that the tool is admin-only and gated by a feature flag. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use, the purpose and constraints are clear enough for an agent to make appropriate choices.

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