write_skillSave a skill to the store by providing its name, files, and optional message; replace existing skills when needed. Binary files are base64 encoded.
Write a complete skill into the writable store; binary files use base64.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| files | Yes | ||
| message | No | ||
| replace | No | ||
| binary_files | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds one useful detail (binary files use base64) but is silent on overwrite/replace semantics, whether 'complete' means the entire skill is replaced, what happens when replace=false, and what side effects writing into the store has.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and the non-obvious base64 note are both present. It is concise to a fault, lacking supporting context, but the wording that exists earns its place.
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 five parameters, nested file maps, a replace flag, and no annotations, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It does not explain what files expects, what message is for, what replace controls, or how binary_files relates to files; the output schema may cover return values, but input semantics are under-specified.
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 must compensate for the five parameters. It only clarifies the binary_files/base64 aspect; name, files, message, and replace remain effectively unexplained, leaving critical invocation behavior ambiguous.
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 names a specific verb ('Write'), a resource ('a complete skill'), and a target ('the writable store'), so the tool's core purpose is understandable. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like migrate_skill or add_store, but the phrasing is clear enough to distinguish it from list/remove/use tools.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use write_skill versus alternatives such as migrate_skill, add_store, or update_store. The phrase 'writable store' hints at a prerequisite, but it is not stated as a condition or exclusion, and the replace/message parameters are not framed in terms of usage flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.