Approve Jules Session Plan

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the consequence ('After approval, Jules will execute the planned steps') and the required precondition (session state check). The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description enriches understanding of the tool's effect without contradicting the annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Note) and no redundant fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though slight trimming of repetition in the parameter line could make it even more concise.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose, return value, and a critical precondition. It does not elaborate on error behaviors (e.g., what happens if the session is not awaiting approval), but the provided information is sufficient for a straightforward approval action.

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 already provides full coverage for the single parameter (sessionId), including a description. The description's mention of 'session ID with pending plan' adds no substantive meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Approve a pending plan in a Jules session.' It is distinct from sibling tools like jules_get_session or jules_send_message, which handle different operations.

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?

It provides a clear condition for use ('Only needed when the session was created with requirePlanApproval=true') and a prerequisite ('Check session state is AWAITING_PLAN_APPROVAL before calling'). However, it does not explicitly mention what to use instead when those conditions are not met, so it lacks the explicit 'when-not' guidance for a 5.

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