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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds useful context: it is state-changing, it hides the pending suggestion until the specified date/time, and it requires authorization. It does not explain what happens after that date or whether the action is reversible, 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the use case and followed by behavioral context and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter state-changing tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides the essential when-to-use and behavioral information. It could be slightly more complete by noting the post-snooze behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates that suggestion_id should come from list-space-suggestions and that until is a timestamp, but adds no format or usage detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb (snooze/postpone) and resource (one Autopilot/repository-sync documentation suggestion), and it distinguishes the operation from related actions by clarifying that it hides the pending suggestion until a specified date/time rather than applying or discarding it.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user wants to postpone, remind later, or snooze a suggestion. It also names the prerequisite for obtaining the required suggestion_id, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools such as apply-space-suggestion or discard-space-suggestion.

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