Create a skill pack with instructions, tools, and configuration files to enable reusable AI capabilities in your IDE workflows.
Create a skill pack in YAA\F (writes SKILL.md + skill_configs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| tools | No | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| spec_id | No | ||
| slot_key | No | ||
| updated_by | No | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| instruction | Yes | ||
| allowed_tools | No | ||
| classification | No | ||
| include_examples | No | ||
| include_references | No | ||
| assigned_user_emails | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a meaningful side-effect detail ('writes SKILL.md + skill_configs'), making clear this is a file-writing mutation, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or what happens if the id already exists.
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 wasted words, stating the action, the resource, and the write side-effect. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices detail that could have been included without much length.
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 14 parameters, 3 required fields, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far from sufficient for correct invocation. The file-write hint helps, but the agent is left without essential information about parameter roles, required inputs, return behavior, or prerequisites.
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 14 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The required fields id, description, and instruction are not mentioned or explained, so an agent has no guidance on what values to supply or how they map to SKILL.md and skill_configs.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a skill pack in YAA\F'), and clarifies the concrete output by noting it 'writes SKILL.md + skill_configs'. This clearly separates it from sibling tools focused on updating, validating, enabling, or reading skills.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives such as yaaif_skill_update_module_files, yaaif_skill_edit_section, or yaaif_skill_validate, nor does it state that this is only for creating new skill packs rather than modifying existing ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.