Add freeform markdown notes to your project plan. Append prose at the top level of PLAN.md to capture ideas, decisions, or context without manual file edits.
Append freeform markdown at top level.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | 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?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Append' implies a mutating operation, but it does not disclose side effects, whether it edits PLAN.md in place, how 'top level' insertion works, idempotency, error behavior, or any permissions/requirements. This is insufficient for a write tool.
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, well-paced sentence with no wasted words and the key action front-loaded. It loses a point only because brevity crosses into under-specification, leaving important referents vague.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, 50% parameter coverage, and a likely mutating effect on a plan document, the description is far too thin. It fails to explain the target ('top level' of what?), the default plan_path behavior (though the schema hints at it), or what happens on invocation. An agent would need significant external inference to call this confidently.
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 50%: plan_path already has a clear description, but text only has a type. The phrase 'freeform markdown' adds meaningful semantics to the text parameter, indicating unconstrained Markdown content. However, the description adds nothing about plan_path beyond the schema, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.
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 identifies the action (append) and the content (freeform markdown), but 'top level' is ambiguous—it does not name the target document (e.g., PLAN.md) or specify whether 'top level' refers to document structure, sections, or something else. This makes it hard to distinguish from related append-like operations among the many plan-management siblings.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios that favor append_prose over e.g. add_task, update_task, or add_to_backlog. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.