jules_approve_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: Jules is blocked from modifying code until the plan is approved, which explains the consequence of inaction. It says nothing about permissions, reversibility of a rejection, or what happens to an already-running task.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the gating constraint. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 three-parameter, two-required tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the approval gate but omits the result of the call (e.g. task state transition after rejection) and any permission requirements. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100% and the schema itself explains the approve/reject boolean and the optional feedback field. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair (approves/rejects) and resource (the execution plan formulated by Jules), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-neighbors like jules_send_feedback or jules_cancel_task, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 second sentence implies the usage window (after a plan exists, before code modification), which is genuinely useful. But it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not guidance, e.g. that steering without a full rejection should go through jules_send_feedback.

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