haops_update_skill_pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses: no version bump, audit log captures diff, admin requirement, feature flag dependency, immutability of name/isSystem, no-op when no changes, full replacement semantics for skillIds, and return of updated entity. No contradictions.

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 single paragraph but well-structured: starts with core behavior, then constraints, then parameter-specific notes. It is relatively concise given the complexity, though could be slightly more organized with bullet points. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With 6 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: update behavior, immutability, no-op, skillIds replacement, audit log behavior, and return type. It explains when audit rows are written and mentions admin and feature flag. Complete for its complexity level.

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 beyond schema: explains 'name' as a lookup key, 'verbose' controls response detail, 'skillIds' must be full replacement with constraints (current, non-deprecated, system-scope), and category implies re-categorization. The no-op behavior is a critical addition not in schema.

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 'Update an existing skill pack in place — no version bump', specifying the action (update), resource (skill pack), and key behavioral trait (in-place, unversioned). It distinguishes from creation by noting immutable fields and from other updates by mentioning audit log and no-op behavior.

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?

Explicitly says 'Admin only, requires ENABLE_COMPOSED_PROTOCOLS=true', provides prerequisites. It explains when the tool should be used (update existing pack), what not to do (immutable fields), and describes no-op behavior. It also gives guidance on skillIds as a full replacement.

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