Create a new major version section in PLAN.md with version and title. Use when initiating a major plan update to keep project plan organized and trackable.
Create ## vX.Y — Title major section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| plan_path | No | Optional path to PLAN.md (relative to cwd or absolute). Default: walk up from cwd to nearest PLAN.md. | |
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says "Create," implying mutation, but does not explain whether this appends to PLAN.md, overwrites existing content, requires special permissions, or what the operation's side effects are. This is a significant gap for a write operation with no annotation coverage.
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 short, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. The heading template is useful and front-loaded, but the single sentence omits essential context, making it closer to a stub than a well-structured definition.
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?
With four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage, the description does not provide enough context for correct invocation. Missing details include how plan_path is used, what description should contain, what the resulting plan change looks like, and any side effects or return behavior. The entry is only minimally viable.
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 25%, so the description must compensate. It partially clarifies that version and title form the heading, but it does not explain the description parameter or the plan_path behavior, and it leaves version format ambiguous beyond the literal "vX.Y" pattern. The added value is minimal relative to the parameter count.
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 specific verb and resource: it creates a major section with heading format "## vX.Y — Title". However, "major section" is never defined in relation to PLAN.md or any other artifact, and the description does not distinguish it from siblings like create_plan or create_iteration. The purpose is recognizable but ambiguous.
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 tool versus create_plan, create_iteration, or add_task. The description gives no context about which workflow step it belongs to or what qualifies as a major section. An agent cannot confidently route between this and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.