update_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that updating a skill creates a new version (rather than overwriting in place), and that ownership is a prerequisite. This is meaningful behavior disclosure, though it does not mention side effects like old version retention or permission details.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb 'Update' and includes a parenthetical clarification about versioning. Every word 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?

The tool has a nested skill object with multiple required and optional fields, plus an agent_key parameter, yet the description is minimal and provides no guidance on how to structure the update. With no annotations and low parameter transparency, the description is insufficient for an agent to safely and correctly invoke this tool without additional schema exploration.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It barely does: 'existing skill you own' implies 'id' identifies the skill and 'skill' contains the update, but it does not explain the nested fields (name, description, body, meta, tags, triggers) or the 'agent_key' parameter. Most parameter meaning is left to the schema, which has no descriptions.

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 the action ('Update'), the resource ('an existing skill'), and the scope ('you own'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_skill, get_skill, and publish_skill. It also adds the specific behavior of creating a new version, which clarifies the update semantics.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for updating skills owned by the user, which implies it is not for creating new skills or modifying others' skills. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the ownership qualifier and the update verb make the usage context clear.

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