Copies a run's reviewed changes into the real project, refusing if those files changed since the run, so you can apply approved diffs safely.
Copy a run's changes into the real project (refuses if those files changed meanwhile). Only call this after the user has reviewed the diff and agreed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run | Yes | Run id (or 'last'). | |
| project | No | Absolute path of the project directory (default: server's cwd). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavior: it refuses when files changed in the meantime (a concurrency guard) and requires prior user approval. It stops short of saying whether the copy is reversible or how partial failures are handled, so not a 5.
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?
Two tight sentences: what it does first, then the gating condition. No filler, and the destructive operation's precondition is placed where an agent will read it before acting.
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 destructive, 2-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety check, and approval gate. Minor gap: it doesn't indicate the result of a successful apply or recovery options if the conflict refusal fires.
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 100%, so 'run' (with 'last' shorthand) and 'project' (absolute path defaulting to cwd) are fully documented upstream. The description references 'a run's changes' but adds no format or default detail beyond that; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('copy a run's changes') and target ('the real project'), which is unmistakable against siblings like aegis_diff (preview) and aegis_discard (throw away). An agent can route correctly without opening a sibling schema.
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?
Gives an explicit, hard precondition: 'Only call this after the user has reviewed the diff and agreed.' It also implicitly names the alternative workflow (diff first, then apply), leaving little to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.