codex_approve_plan

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

With empty annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'queue execution' but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions required, or whether the plan is locked after approval. The description is functional but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, direct and front-loaded with the action. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant information.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain optional parameters like message, approval_policy, or timeout_seconds, nor does it describe the return value or expected outcome. More detail is needed for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 25% (2 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It mentions workflowId in the narrative but without clarifying its role. For a tool with many parameters, more guidance is needed.

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 action: 'Approve the latest ready plan and queue execution.' It specifies the resource (plan) and verb (approve), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_adopt_workflow_plan and codex_execute_plan.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: after codex_get_workflow_status reports plan_ready and a valid latestPlan. It also indicates the next step: poll codex_get_workflow_status with the same workflowId. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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