jules_reject_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It states the action is a rejection but doesn't disclose whether this is destructive (e.g., irreversible), requires specific permissions, affects session state, or has side effects like notifications. The optional feedback is mentioned but not explained in terms of impact.

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 with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('rejects the current plan') and adds optional functionality concisely. Every element earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after rejection (e.g., session state changes, return values, error conditions), nor does it address complexity like interactions with other session tools. Given the lack of structured data, more behavioral context is needed.

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%, providing basic parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value by implying 'sessionId' identifies the target session and 'feedback' is optional input for the rejection, but doesn't elaborate on format, constraints, or how feedback is used beyond what the schema already states.

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 action ('rejects') and target ('current plan for a session'), with optional feedback. It distinguishes from siblings like 'jules_approve_plan' by specifying rejection, but doesn't fully differentiate from other session-modifying tools like 'jules_cancel_session' or 'send_reply_to_session'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing plan), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'jules_cancel_session' or 'send_reply_to_session' for session management.

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