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 discloses the required session state, which is useful context, but it does not explain what happens after approval (e.g., the plan is executed), any permissions needed, or whether the action is reversible. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and condition without any wasted words. Every word earns its place.

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 approval action with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and condition. It could mention post-approval effects, but given the low complexity, it is adequately 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (session_id and account_id) have descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, aligning with the baseline score for full coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Approve') and clearly identifies the resource ('generated execution plan') and the context ('session paused in AWAITING_PLAN_APPROVAL state'). It is distinct from sibling tools like jules_delegate_task or jules_send_message.

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 description provides a clear usage condition: the session must be in AWAITING_PLAN_APPROVAL state. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the state condition effectively guides when this tool should be used.

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