Creates a vault skill with frontmatter, Markdown instructions, and optional scripts, enabling agents to save reusable procedures for later activation.
Create a skill in the vault with frontmatter, markdown body and optional scripts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| scripts | No | ||
| skill_id | Yes | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| instructions_markdown | Yes |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does not disclose idempotency/overwrite behavior, required auth or vault permissions, what happens if skill_id already exists, or reversibility. It does convey the artifact's structure (frontmatter + markdown body + optional scripts), which is its only real behavioral value.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and payload shape come first. Brief, though brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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 5-param mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. The output schema covers return values, but nothing addresses preconditions, collisions, or the four required parameters, so an agent cannot safely invoke it from the description alone.
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 coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps to three params (frontmatter/description, markdown body/instructions_markdown, scripts), but skill_id and name are entirely unexplained and no formats or constraints are given.
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?
Specific verb (Create) plus resource (skill) and location (in the vault), which distinguishes it from its delete_skill/list_skills/enable_skill siblings. However it doesn't explicitly contrast with the alternative write path (orquestra_create_mcp) or state uniqueness constraints, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
No statement of when to use this vs siblings like orquestra_enable_skill or orquestra_create_mcp, and no prerequisites or preconditions (e.g. whether skill_id must be unique, whether an existing skill is overwritten). Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.