update_skill_levelAdjust the proficiency level of an existing skill term in your skills.md profile, marking it solid or partial. Use confirm_skill first for terms not yet listed.
Changes the level of a term that is ALREADY in skills.md. For something that is not in the profile yet, use confirm_skill.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | Term exactly as it appears in skills.md. | |
| level | Yes | New level: solid or partial. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description adds the important precondition that the term must already exist, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it stops short of saying what happens if the term is absent.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the key precondition, with the routing alternative second. Every clause carries information; no filler.
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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations already covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description supplies the precondition and sibling routing an agent needs. Nothing essential is missing.
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 both parameters (term, level) are already fully documented, including the enum values. The description reinforces that the term must already exist but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?
The description states a specific verb (changes) and resource (level of a term in skills.md), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling confirm_skill. An agent can tell immediately that this mutates an existing entry rather than creating one.
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 gives an explicit when: the term is ALREADY in skills.md. It also gives an explicit when-not with the named alternative: 'For something that is not in the profile yet, use confirm_skill.' Nothing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.