Approve Jules Execution Plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the precondition (requirePlanApproval=true, AWAITING_PLAN_APPROVAL) and the action of approval. However, it does not describe the post-approval effects (e.g., execution starts) or any potential errors, so it falls short of full transparency.

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 three sentences that are concise and information-dense. It front-loads the action, then adds the condition, then gives a practical pointer without any fluff.

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 approve operation with one parameter, the description covers the action, required precondition, and a helpful handoff to view the plan. The absence of an output schema means return values are not specified, but the description gives enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides a description for sessionId ('Session ID to approve plan for'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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' with a clearly defined resource 'execution plan for a Jules session' and a condition (requirePlanApproval=true). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by indicating this is an action on a plan, not a list or session management tool.

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 states 'Only needed when session state is AWAITING_PLAN_APPROVAL,' providing a clear when-to-use condition. It also tells the user to 'View the plan first with jules_list_activities,' which offers a concrete alternative preceding the action.

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