nexo_skill_retire

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It vaguely states 'cleanly', but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or dependencies. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 very concise (10 words, one sentence). It is front-loaded and easy to read, but could benefit from structured formatting while remaining concise. However, it does not earn its place as it omits critical 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?

Given the complexity of skill retirement (likely irreversible, impact on dependencies), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output, permissions, and what 'cleanly' entails. No output schema or annotations exist to compensate.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of the parameters (id, replacement_id, reason). The agent has no guidance on how to use these parameters, making it difficult to invoke correctly.

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 'Retire a skill' and the outcome 'leaves the active lifecycle'. It distinguishes this tool from other skill-related tools, as no other sibling tool targets retirement. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like nexo_skill_approve, which might also affect lifecycle.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., skill must be active), or when not to use. It only implies the purpose without contextual usage instructions.

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