Apply agent instruction files for a selected provider (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, or Copilot) to the server's active repository root, optionally writing changes.
MCP-bound: apply using the server's active repository root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| write | No | ||
| provider | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It hints that the operation is bound to the server's active repo root (no path argument needed), but never says what files are modified, whether default behavior is a no-op/dry run, or that this mutates the working tree.
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 no padding, so it is structurally clean and front-loaded. However the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — there is simply nothing there to be concise about.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and an ambiguous default-off `write` flag, the description is far too thin to let an agent call it safely or correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters and does not. The enum values are self-describing filenames, but the `write` boolean with default false — the single most consequential parameter (dry-run vs. real write) — gets no explanation in either schema or description.
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 leans on the name's verb 'apply' and only supplies a location ('the server's active repository root'), never stating what resource is being applied — agent instruction files (AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md / copilot-instructions.md) into the repo. It reads as a restatement of the tool name plus a positional qualifier, so an agent learns little about the actual action.
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 and no mention of the obvious alternatives aiworkhub_agent_tool_instruction_preview or _inspect, which exist to preview the same change. The critical branch condition — that `write` defaults to false, implying a dry-run unless explicitly enabled — is never called out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.