jules_approve_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates this is a write/mutation operation but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the plan is already approved. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences, no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains the consequence. Highly efficient.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description omits important context such as error conditions, whether the action is reversible, or any confirmation behavior. With no annotations to supplement, the description falls short of complete guidance.

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 100% with a clear parameter description for sessionId. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Approve') and the resource ('a plan in a session'), making the tool's core function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools, though the sibling list does not contain other approval tools, so differentiation is implicit.

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 when to use ('a session that requires plan approval') and the effect ('allows Jules to proceed'), but does not state when not to use or provide explicit alternatives. Since no other sibling tool performs approval, usage context is clear but not comprehensive.

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