Delete a saved skill

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The word "Permanently" reinforces irreversibility but adds little beyond the annotation, and there is no disclosure of cascade behavior, failure modes for a missing id, or permission requirements.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, and the destructive qualifier is front-loaded right after the verb. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence is so terse that it leaves no room for the operational detail an agent would want.

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 is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety contract. Still, for a destructive operation the description says nothing about what happens when the id does not exist or the skill is in active use, leaving a meaningful gap.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage — the schema already tells the agent it is 'The skill id from list_skills.' The phrase 'by id' in the description adds nothing new, so the baseline 3 for fully documented schemas applies.

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?

States a specific verb (delete), resource (saved skill), and lookup key (id) in one sentence, so it is clearly distinct from siblings like update_skill, get_skill, and run_skill. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 never says when to reach for this versus update_skill or whether a non-destructive alternative exists. There is no mention of prerequisites, confirmation steps, or what to do if the skill is still referenced by a schedule — the agent must infer all of that.

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