approve_plan

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

Without annotations, the description reveals that the tool modifies state (approve/replace) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or irreversible consequences.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and key parameters, though 'or replace via edits' is slightly verbose.

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?

No output schema or annotations; description omits prerequisites, error conditions, or return behavior, making it insufficient for a tool that affects multiple tenants.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal parameter context—'job_id' is implied but 'edits' is not explained, and 'launch tenants' is ambiguous.

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 the tool approves or replaces a plan using 'job_id' and mentions 'launch tenants', distinguishing it from siblings like cancel or get_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 implies usage for approving plans but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like start_orchestration, nor any exclusions or preconditions.

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