plan_approve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Freeze' suggests an irreversible state change and 'approval evidence' implies a requirement, but the description does not disclose whether the plan hash is validated, whether the plan becomes immutable, or what side effects or errors occur.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the core action and object without redundancy.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain prerequisites, the meaning of the expected SHA-256, or how this tool fits into the overall workflow, though an output schema may cover return values.

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 0%, and the description only loosely maps 'approval evidence' to approval_statement. It does not explain plan_id, expected_plan_sha256, approved_by, or project_path, leaving most parameters semantically unsupported.

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 the specific verb 'freeze' with the resource 'ready analysis plan' and the qualifier 'explicit approval evidence,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like plan_prepare. This is a concise and unambiguous statement of what the tool does.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plan_prepare or run_execute. The word 'ready' implies a prerequisite but does not state a clear workflow context or exclusions.

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