Create, update, or delete multiple project files with conflict-aware preflight.
Create, update, or delete multiple project files with conflict-aware preflight.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | Yes | ||
| changes | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the notable behavioral trait 'conflict-aware preflight', but does not say what happens on conflict (abort vs. partial apply) or what permissions are required.
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 filler; the destructive multi-file scope and the preflight behavior are both conveyed immediately.
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 destructive, multi-file mutation with two fully undocumented required parameters, the description is far too thin. It omits the root/changes contract and the conflict-resolution behavior an agent needs to call it safely.
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 coverage is 0% for both required parameters, and the description never explains what 'root' means or what shape each entry in the 'changes' array (arbitrary objects) must have. 'Multiple project files' only faintly hints that 'changes' is a collection of file modifications.
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 specific verbs (create, update, delete) plus the resource (project files) and scope (multiple), which lets an agent distinguish it from read-only siblings like read_file and list_directory. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 versus shell, run_python, or validate, and no stated preconditions (e.g., clean working tree, repo root requirement). Usage is only implied by the verb 'apply'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.