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 reveals that this is not read-only (records approval and advances state), but it does not disclose side effects on the plan, reversibility, permissions required, or failure conditions. For a simple state transition, this is minimal but not comprehensive.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. It contains no redundant wording, filler, or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential purpose and progression but omits parameter semantics and preconditions (e.g., that a plan must already exist). An agent might call it without full context, so it is only minimally 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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the project_id parameter at all. The name is self-explanatory, but the description gives no context about how project_id relates to the plan or the approval process. This forces the agent to rely on schema type alone, which is insufficient.

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 states a specific action (record user's approval) and resource (generated plan), plus the outcome (advance to EXECUTE). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like make_plan (create plan) and run (execute), even without naming them, by specifying the transition trigger.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when the user approves the generated plan. The phrase 'advance to EXECUTE' signals it is the step before execution. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer the context from sibling names.

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