jules_approve_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. 'Approves' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., plan execution), reversibility, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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, efficient sentence that states the core action without fluff. However, it's slightly under-specified for a mutation tool, as it could benefit from one more clarifying detail without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (mutation tool), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'approves' does operationally, what happens after approval, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 100% for the single parameter 'sessionId', so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no parameter details beyond implying it's for a session, but with 0 parameters needing extra semantics, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as no compensation is required.

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 the action ('Approves') and target ('the current plan for a session'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what 'approves' entails operationally or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'jules_reject_plan' beyond the opposite action, missing specifics like workflow implications or resource effects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a pending plan), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'jules_reject_plan' or 'jules_wait_for_plan', leaving usage context implied but unspecified.

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