Mark a project iteration complete, overriding open tasks when needed, and append a custom stamp to the title.
Mark iteration COMPLETE. Requires force=true if open tasks remain. Optional stamp (e.g. date) appended to title.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | ||
| stamp | No | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly signals a state-changing operation, exposes the force requirement for open tasks, and notes that an optional stamp modifies the title. However, it does not disclose side effects of force=true, reversibility, or any return behavior.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler or redundancy. The core action comes first, followed by the key precondition and optional behavior.
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?
The description covers the essential operation, the force condition, and the stamp behavior. However, it omits what version refers to, what happens to open tasks when force=true, and what the tool returns. Given no annotations and no output schema, a bit more context would be needed for fully confident invocation.
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?
The description adds real meaning for force ('true if open tasks remain') and stamp ('appended to title'), but the required version parameter is left completely unexplained. With only 25% schema description coverage, this is a significant gap that the description does not fill.
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 states a concrete action and target state: 'Mark iteration COMPLETE.' This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like start_iteration and complete_task, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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 implies when to use the tool by naming the action, and it provides a useful precondition: force=true is required if open tasks remain. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.