approve_inbox_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a state-gating mutation that unlocks execution and that it returns a plan summary, but says nothing about permission requirements, whether approval can be revoked, or what happens when no pending plan exists.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, followed by prerequisites and return value. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when it must be called relative to siblings, and roughly what it returns. The main residual gap is error/precondition behavior when no plan is pending.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 pairs a specific verb (approve) with a specific resource (the pending inbox plan) and states the effect ('to enable execution'). It is mostly distinguishable from siblings, though it does not directly contrast with get_inbox_plan, which presumably supplies the plan being approved.

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 gives explicit ordering constraints naming the exact sibling calls: after scan_inbox() and before execute_inbox_file_batch() or get_inbox_content_batch(). An agent can place this call in the workflow with no inference required.

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