Edit specific sections in SKILL.md files to update skill documentation directly from your IDE, ensuring accurate skill definitions across the platform.
Edit a SKILL.md section via skill_edit_section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | ||
| arguments | No | ||
| session_id | 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a section is edited, implying mutation, but does not say whether the section must already exist, whether the edit is additive or replacing, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. The only substantive phrase, 'Edit a SKILL.md section,' is followed by a redundant restatement of the tool name, wasting the little space available.
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 three parameters, a nested and fully open arguments object, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling tool set, this description is far too thin. An agent would not know how to identify a section, what content to provide, or what the expected result is, so the tool is effectively unusable 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters: agent_id, arguments, or session_id. The arguments parameter is an opaque object with additionalProperties allowed, but the description gives no hint of what fields it should contain, such as section identifier or new content. The tool cannot be called correctly based on the available information.
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 identifies a clear verb and resource: 'Edit a SKILL.md section.' However, it immediately repeats the tool name ('via skill_edit_section'), adding no information, and 'section' is left undefined. It does not differentiate this from sibling tools like yaaif_skill_write_file, which also modifies skill file content.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yaaif_skill_write_file, yaaif_skill_read_file, or yaaif_skill_create. There is no mention of prerequisites, required context, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.