Regenerate the sub-task DAG and recreate intentions when unexpected blockers or environmental changes disrupt the current plan, keeping goals adaptive.
Regenerate sub-task DAG and abort/recreate intentions upon unexpected blockers or environmental state changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| goal_id | Yes | ||
| project | No | ||
| trigger_event | No | ||
| preserve_completed | No | ||
| blocker_description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'abort/recreate intentions' which implies mutation, but it does not explain what happens to existing intents, whether changes are reversible, or the response format. It lacks detail on side effects or preconditions.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the main action. There is no redundancy and it is easy to read, though it lacks any structural breakdown of use cases or alternatives.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, side effects, required parameters, or the meaning of action enum values. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without more context.
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%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The 6 parameters (action, goal_id, project, trigger_event, preserve_completed, blocker_description) are undocumented in the description, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them beyond the raw 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Regenerate sub-task DAG and abort/recreate intentions' and gives trigger conditions. It distinguishes from siblings like set_goal or manage_intentions by focusing on replanning upon blockers/state changes, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 implies usage when there are unexpected blockers or environmental state changes, but it does not explain when not to use it or how it relates to siblings like evaluate_situation or assess_risk. It gives context but no explicit guidance or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.