Define or update the goal for an iteration in your project plan, ensuring clarity on what the iteration aims to achieve.
Set/replace Goal: on an iteration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | 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. |
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 must disclose behavioral traits itself. It reveals that the operation replaces an existing goal (destructive), but it says nothing about versioning semantics, error behavior, side effects on the iteration, or permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 one-sentence description is efficiently written with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than optimally concise. It lacks any structure to convey usage or parameter context, making it less useful than a slightly longer, better-organized description.
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 two required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits how the iteration is selected, what version means, how plan_path resolves, and what happens on success or failure. An agent would need to infer or discover critical details.
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?
Only plan_path has a schema description (33% coverage), and the tool description does not explain goal or version. 'Goal' is somewhat inferable from the tool name, but 'version' is ambiguous (likely optimistic concurrency) and the relationship between version, plan_path, and target iteration is unexplained. The description adds little beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Set/replace') and identifies the resource ('Goal on an iteration'), so the core action is clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_iteration or update_task by focusing on the goal field, but it does not specify which iteration is targeted or how it is identified, preventing a top score.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_iteration or update_task. The description does not mention prerequisites, whether it should be called after creating an iteration, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.