Delete skill

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful behavior: the operation is a soft-delete whose effect is removal from listings and loss of agent usability, plus a confirmation precondition. The 'permanently delete' / 'soft-delete' phrasing is internally muddled but not contradicted by the annotations.

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 delete behavior and soft-delete consequence are front-loaded and useful. The final sentence about runs spending credits and downstream actions is off-topic for a skill deletion and reads as filler, diluting an otherwise tight definition.

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 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces: soft-delete semantics and the confirmation requirement. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Only the irrelevant credits sentence detracts.

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 description coverage is 100%, so account, confirm, and skill_id are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that confirmation is mandatory and account-scoped, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 and resource ('Permanently delete a skill') and adds scope detail that the skill stops appearing in listings and becomes unusable by agents. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like update_skill or delete_brain_source, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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?

It states that explicit confirmation is required for 'this exact account operation,' which is real usage guidance. However, the trailing sentence about runs spending credits and downstream actions reads like boilerplate copied from a run-execution tool and does not tell the agent when to prefer delete_skill over update_skill or when deletion is appropriate.

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