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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds genuinely new context: completing does not message the contact, and snoozing shifts the due time so the task reappears. It stops short of saying whether completion is reversible or what permissions are needed, keeping it below a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the action set and the two most surprising behaviors (no messaging, snooze shifting due time) are front-loaded.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers action semantics and the key non-obvious side effects well; the applicationId failure mode is handled in the schema. Little is missing for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents the meaning of action, dueAt, snoozeUntil, reason, reasonText, and applicationId in detail. The description reinforces action semantics but adds no syntax or format information beyond the schema.

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 opens with four concrete verbs (close, reopen, snooze, reschedule) applied to a specific resource (one follow-up task), making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like create_follow_up_task or list_follow_up_tasks.

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 clarifies what each action means behaviorally and implicitly tells the agent when to pick snooze vs reschedule vs complete. It doesn't explicitly point at alternatives (e.g., list_follow_up_tasks for discovery), but the usage context is clear.

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