Append a checkbox task to an iteration to track progress in your project plan without editing files directly.
Append a checkbox task to an iteration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| done | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| agent | No | Optional agent id tag written as [agent: id] on touched lines. | |
| version | Yes | ||
| plan_path | No | Optional path to PLAN.md (relative to cwd or absolute). Default: walk up from cwd to nearest PLAN.md. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the core append action and does not mention side effects on the plan file, whether the iteration/version must exist, or how the agent and done fields affect touched lines.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or restatement. It is concise, though slightly too sparse to fully carry the tool's context.
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 five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and several sibling tools, a one-line description leaves important gaps: what file is modified, how version identifies the iteration, what the task entry looks like, and when to prefer the plural add_tasks.
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 only 40%, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain the required version and text parameters or the done flag; only agent and plan_path have schema documentation. 'Checkbox task' hints at a done state but is not explicit about parameter behavior.
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 names a specific verb ('Append'), a specific resource ('checkbox task'), and a location ('to an iteration'), so an agent can mostly discern what add_task does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish add_task from the plural sibling add_tasks, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. With siblings like add_tasks and add_to_backlog present, there is no statement about when to choose add_task instead, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.