Update a saved skill

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is known; the description usefully adds patch semantics rather than full replacement. It does not disclose that replacing promptTemplate or defaultParams overwrites prior content irreversibly or what happens when skillId is unknown — the main residual gaps behind the destructive hint.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the mutation semantics front-loaded ahead of the use case. Every sentence adds information.

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 destructive partial-update tool with a nested defaultParams object and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what changes, what is preserved, and the typical use. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid skillId, overwrite consequences) and the undocumented scalar fields.

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 only 50%, and the description only mentions promptTemplate and defaultParams — two of the parameters the schema already documents. The undocumented name, slug and description parameters, and any uniqueness constraints on slug, are left unexplained, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ("Update a saved skill in place") and even names the affected surfaces (prompt template, default params). It is clearly distinguishable from create_skill, delete_skill, run_skill and get_skill by name and wording, though it never explicitly routes away from those siblings.

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?

"Only the provided fields change; omit a field to leave it unchanged" gives the agent a clear partial-update contract, and "Useful for tweaking a prompt template or its default params" names the common case. No exclusions or alternatives are given (e.g. when to use create_skill or delete_skill instead).

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