jules_approve_plan

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, open-world mutation, and the description adds real context beyond them: the required session state, the fact that approval triggers code writing, and the error case when the session is not awaiting approval. It stops short of saying whether approval can be revoked, but otherwise the behavioral surface is well disclosed.

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?

The main instruction, precondition, and alternative are front-loaded in the first sentence, with Args/Returns sections following in a scannable format. The Returns block restates behavior already implied, but nothing is padded or repetitive.

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 single-parameter state-transition tool, the definition covers preconditions, the alternative action, error conditions, and the follow-up tool for tracking progress, while return shape is covered by the existing output schema. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single 'session' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does by identifying the value as a session id and naming the two sibling tools (jules_start, jules_sessions) that produce it, which is the key information an agent needs to populate the field correctly.

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 and resource ('approve the plan Jules proposed') plus the concrete consequence ('starts writing code'). It is clearly separable from the sibling jules_message, which the description explicitly names as the tool for changing the plan.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (session started with jules_start(require_plan_approval=True) and state awaiting plan approval), an ordering instruction (read the plan with jules_status first and show it to the user), and the alternative path (jules_message for feedback). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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