Writes or updates a target file with generated documentation content at the given path, keeping code documentation current.
Apply generated documentation to a file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | The documentation content | |
| file_path | Yes | Path of the file to update/create |
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. It implies a mutation ('apply... to a file') but does not state whether existing content is overwritten or appended, whether the file/directories are created, whether it is reversible, or what is returned.
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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately terse, though arguably under-specified rather than merely 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should clarify the effect on existing file content and the return value. With 100% schema coverage the parameters are covered, but the behavioral picture an agent needs before writing to a file is largely absent.
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 both parameters (file_path, content) are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds no format, path-resolution, or content-shape details beyond what the schema provides.
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 (apply), resource (generated documentation) and target (a file), so the agent knows it writes documentation into a file. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like generate_docs_for_changes, leaving the boundary between generating and applying implicit.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools or how they chain (e.g., generate then apply). Usage is only vaguely inferable from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.