approve_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses guard conditions (plan must be unchanged, exact confirmation value), which is useful, but says nothing about the consequences of approval, permissions required, or reversibility of an operation that clearly triggers downstream work.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the action and its hard requirement are front-loaded where an agent will see them first.

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 guarded approval action with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves too much open: the role of 'presentation', the meaning of plan_hash, and the effect of approval are all unstated.

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 0% for all three required params. The description effectively explains only 'confirmation' (value APPROVE PLAN) and hints at plan_hash via 'unchanged plan', while 'presentation' is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (approve) and resource (plan), with an added qualifier ('unchanged plan') that scopes the action. It is distinguishable from sibling mutations like submit_deck_plan, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 clear invocation condition ('after explicit user review') and a hard precondition (confirmation string). It does not state when NOT to use it or point to a sibling for changed plans, but the context for use is explicit.

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