Create or append agent and skill files in a project root, applying idempotent updates so repeated runs do not duplicate or overwrite existing content.
Provision or append agent & skill files (idempotent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_root | Yes | ||
| force_version | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / properties / project_root / maxLengthAdded value: +4096v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful traits (idempotent, append mode), but omits what is overwritten, whether the operation is destructive, permission requirements, and what the result looks like — significant gaps for a write 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?
A single short sentence with the key action and mode front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though arguably too terse to be fully useful.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is not complete enough to call the tool confidently. The idempotency note helps but does not compensate for the missing parameter and behavioral detail.
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 mentions neither parameter. The opaque force_version parameter is left entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description, so an agent cannot infer its format or effect.
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 gives a verb pair (provision/append) and a resource (agent & skill files), so the core action is legible. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings such as init_agents, init_audit, or bootstrap_session, leaving the agent to guess which file-provisioning tool is appropriate.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many init_/bootstrap_ siblings. The agent gets a purpose but no routing signal for choosing this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.