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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (approve) but does not disclose any side effects, whether the operation is reversible, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens after approval. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the action and condition, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple, and an output schema exists, so return values are defined elsewhere. However, the description lacks essential context: when to use it (beyond the condition), any prerequisites or preconditions, and what the approval entails. An agent might not know if the session must be in a specific state or if approval is the only step. This leaves gaps for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 schema has one parameter (session_id) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not elaborate on what session_id refers to or how it should be obtained. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Approve') and resource ('pending plan for a session created with plan approval required'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by narrowing its use to a particular session type, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 condition for use: only for sessions created with plan approval required. It implies this tool is not for sessions without that requirement, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Still, the context is specific enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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