request_plan_approval

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the user sees the plan and can approve/reject, which is helpful. However, it omits details such as whether the tool blocks further execution, what happens on rejection, or what the tool returns once approval is requested.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then a specific usage trigger and user-experience note. No wasted words; each sentence contributes essential information.

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 simple tool with three fully-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and user interaction adequately. It could optionally mention the return value or approval result, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('request approval') and the resource ('implementation plan'), with a specific scope ('before modifying more than 3 files or making significant changes'). It does not explicitly distinguish between this and the sibling tool 'request_change_approval', but the implementation-plan focus provides reasonable separation.

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?

Provides explicit trigger conditions ('Use this before modifying more than 3 files or making significant changes') and describes the user-facing outcome (user sees summary, can approve or reject). Lacks exclusions or explicit alternative references, but the context is clear and actionable.

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