ouvrir_approbation

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden, and it does disclose the key safety trait: the user alone clicks Approve and Discord is not modified. It leaves out whether the call blocks until the user acts, what happens on rejection or timeout, and what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences with the precondition front-loaded and the non-mutation guarantee last for emphasis. No filler, though the sentences could tie the approval step to the surrounding plan workflow more tightly.

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 annotations, no output schema and one undocumented parameter make this a workflow tool that relies on the description; it conveys the human-in-the-loop intent and non-destructive nature. Missing: what an approval yields and how it hands off to executer_plan, which keeps it short of complete.

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 single parameter plan_id has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The phrase 'l'aperçu' loosely implies the id refers to a previously previewed plan, but no meaning, source, or format is established.

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 concrete verb and resource: opening a local approval window that shows the exact actions. The closing sentence 'Ne modifie pas Discord' separates it from executer_plan, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 a sequencing precondition ('Après accord de l'utilisateur sur l'aperçu'), which implies this follows the preview step. However, it never says which tool to use before (consulter_plan/preparer_plan) or what to call after approval succeeds, nor any exclusion case.

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