Create or update skill pack files in your tenant skills tree. Provide the file path and content, and select POST or PUT to add or replace skill definitions.
Create or update a skill pack file under the tenant skills tree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| method | No | ||
| content | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Create or update', which implies mutation, but it does not explain whether the tool overwrites existing files, how conflicts are handled, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the response contains. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself, which is a significant gap for a write operation.
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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and target. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, so while structurally efficient, it sacrifices necessary detail. Still, for what it includes, it is appropriately concise.
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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. It fails to define what a 'skill pack file' is, how 'path' should be formatted, what 'content' should contain, or what the 'method' parameter does. An agent cannot reliably call this tool without additional external knowledge, making it contextually incomplete.
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%, meaning the schema provides no semantic hints for the three parameters (path, method, content). The description does not explain any of them—it only mentions 'skill pack file', which loosely maps to 'path' but not explicitly. The method enum (POST/PUT) is entirely unaddressed. With no param descriptions and no compensating text, this is a serious deficiency.
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 specifies a clear verb ('Create or update') and a distinct resource ('skill pack file under the tenant skills tree'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from generic write tools, though it doesn't differentiate it from siblings like yaaif_skill_create or yaaif_skill_update_module_files. It does provide a clear operation and context, earning a 4 rather than a 5 due to missing sibling 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to sibling tools like yaaif_skill_create or yaaif_skill_validate. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for a field with many similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.