Set the specified iteration as the active current one and clear all other current markers to focus project tracking on that version.
Mark iteration ACTIVE / current; clears other current markers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect ('clears other current markers'), but it does not state whether the operation is reversible, idempotent, or what happens on invalid input.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately states the key side effect. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: it does not explain the required 'version' parameter, nor does it give enough context for an agent to safely invoke the tool without additional assumptions. The side effect is clear, but the operational context is incomplete.
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 required 'version' parameter has no schema description and the tool description does not explain what 'version' refers to or what values are valid. Schema coverage is only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning; only plan_path is documented in 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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('iteration'), clearly stating the resulting state ('ACTIVE / current') and the side effect ('clears other current markers'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_current_iteration and close_iteration.
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 intended usage is implied by the name and semantics: starting or switching to an iteration. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.