disable_skill

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

The description adds concrete behavioral details beyond annotations: the skill immediately disappears from the capability catalog, is no longer routable or executable, and deletion is permanent. It also states the return shape, all consistent with the destructiveHint and idempotentHint 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?

Three focused sentences deliver the mechanism, immediate effects, permanence, return value, and usage restriction with no filler. The most important caveat ('permanent removal') is front-loaded and repeated clearly.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it gives the required identifier source, the behavioral outcome, the return value, and the usage boundary. An agent has everything needed to decide and execute 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 schema already fully documents the single binding_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful sourcing guidance by telling the agent to find binding ids via list_skills or list_capability_bindings, which goes beyond the 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 states a specific action (disable one skill) and the exact mechanism (deleting its capability binding), and clarifies the permanent consequence. It clearly differentiates from adjacent tools like enable_skill and list_capability_bindings.

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 explicitly scopes usage to permanent removal only and mentions that re-enabling later requires a fresh enable_skill call, which names the relevant alternative. This gives an agent clear guidance on when to invoke this tool versus others.

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