Cancel selected tasks while preserving their history, then optionally add new tasks at an incremented plan version to formalize a replanning event without deleting nodes or edges.
Formal replanning event. Cancels specified tasks (preserved in history), optionally adds new tasks at an incremented plan_version. Does not delete any nodes or edges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| new_tasks | No | ||
| drop_task_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavioral context: cancelled tasks are preserved in history, plan_version is incremented, and no nodes or edges are deleted. It does not cover reversibility or return behavior, but it clearly establishes the destructive scope.
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 two tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every sentence conveys distinct information. 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 is too thin to fully support correct invocation: it omits the required reason semantics, task dependency fields, and any guidance on when a formal replanning event is appropriate. The behavioral safety notes are helpful but do not make the tool self-contained.
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 needed to compensate, but it never names reason, drop_task_ids, or new_tasks. It gives some conceptual meaning via 'cancels specified tasks' and 'optionally adds new tasks', but leaves the required reason parameter entirely unexplained.
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 defines the operation: a formal replanning event that cancels specified tasks and optionally adds new tasks at an incremented plan_version. It is specific and distinct from generic task editing, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate any sibling tool.
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 given about when to invoke replan versus alternatives such as update_task or plan_session. The phrase 'formal replanning event' implies a use case, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisite information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.