Create a new Muninn-native skill from name, description, and body. Stores two memories (entry + body), wires them by ID, and makes the skill available in the next session_boot. Returns entryId and bodyId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Full skill body: trigger phrases, steps, examples. | |
| name | Yes | Skill name slug e.g. 'muninn-status'. Must be unique. | |
| description | Yes | Trigger description ≤300 chars — shown in the <muninn_skills> list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description goes beyond these by disclosing the internal mechanics (stores two memories, wires them by ID) and the deferred effect (available in next session_boot), which is real value the annotations don't carry. It does not address naming collisions or failure behavior for a duplicate name.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then side effects, then return values. No filler; every sentence carries distinct 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the return values (entryId and bodyId). Combined with full schema coverage and annotation-provided safety profile, an agent has nearly everything needed. It stops short of explaining duplicate-name handling or what 'wires them by ID' implies for later updates.
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%; each of name, description, and body is documented in the schema with slugs, length limits, and content expectations. The description only restates the parameter names without adding syntax or format meaning, so 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+resource: 'Create a new Muninn-native skill from name, description, and body.' It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like muninn_skill_update, muninn_skill_delete, and muninn_skill_check without opening any schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb (you create when a skill doesn't yet exist), and it notes the skill appears in the next session_boot. However, it never explicitly contrasts with muninn_skill_update or muninn_skill_registry, nor states when-not to use it, so no alternative routing guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
