Adjust an ongoing mission without rebuilding the plan. Reprioritize a specific feature by ID and priority to guide execution.
Steer a running mission without rebuilding the plan. Optionally reprioritize a specific feature by id and priority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| feature_id | No | ||
| mission_id | Yes | ||
| instruction | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose what changes occur. It only says 'steer' and 'reprioritize', without explaining side effects, persistence, whether instructions are applied, or operational constraints. It provides some behavioral clues but is insufficient for a mutating operation.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence gives the core behavior and contrast, the second adds the optional parameter relationship. Every word earns its place.
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 tool mutates a running mission and has a free-form instruction parameter, yet the description does not explain what 'instruction' does, what 'repo' scopes, or what a successful steer entails. The output schema exists, but key input semantics remain ambiguous.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies feature_id and priority together, and implies mission_id, but leaves instruction and repo entirely unexplained. Given five parameters and zero schema-level description, this is a meaningful 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 clearly ties the tool name to a meaningful action: steering a running mission without rebuilding the plan, and explicitly mentions optional reprioritization of a feature. This distinguishes it from mission_replan and from feature-level tools like mission_retry_feature, though 'steer' remains slightly broad.
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 phrase 'without rebuilding the plan' implies a contrast with replanning alternatives, and 'running mission' indicates it applies to an active mission. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus mission_replean, mission_adjust_suggestions, or the feature-completion siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.