Approve a plan

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a solid job: it discloses that this is a gated write operation equivalent to direct tool calls and that actions execute sequentially. It does not spell out post-conditions or failure behavior, but the core side-effect profile is visible.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior (executes pending plan) and adds relevant detail (ordering and gated write path) without any filler.

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?

For a one-parameter execution tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, target, and side-effect nature. It is slightly incomplete around planId provenance and what happens after execution, but overall an agent can confidently invoke it.

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 coverage is 0%, but planId is a single self-explanatory string and the description ties it to the pending plan. It adds no information about where the planId comes from or how to validate it, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema description.

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 states a specific action ('executes the actions') on a specific resource ('a pending plan') and adds ordering ('in order'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like dry_run, reject, and plan. The title 'Approve a plan' reinforces the focus.

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?

It clearly situates the tool as the approval/execution step for a pending plan, so an agent can infer when to call it versus dry_run or reject. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.