Mark a story ticket as In Progress and update the local manifest before coding, ensuring work state is tracked accurately for the next implementation step.
Transition the ticket to In Progress and update the local manifest. Use this before writing any code for a story.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan_name | Yes | ||
| story_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly names two side effects: ticket status transition and local manifest update. However, it omits preconditions, error behavior, reversibility, and any other consequences of this mutation.
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 concise sentences that front-load the action and then provide usage context. There is no filler, and every sentence 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 core action and when to use it are covered, and an output schema exists for return-value details. However, the description leaves gaps around parameter semantics and how this tool relates to sibling tools like set_story_status, making it only moderately complete for tool selection.
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 should compensate for missing parameter documentation. It does not explain what plan_name or story_key mean beyond their self-explanatory names, leaving the agent to infer the relationship between a plan and a story.
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 clear verb-resource action: transition the ticket to In Progress and update the local manifest. It is understandable and distinguishes from mark_story_done by the status direction, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from set_story_status.
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 provides a clear usage context: use this before writing any code for a story. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative recommendations, but the trigger condition is clear enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.