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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the conversation is hidden and automatically returns to Open when the time arrives or the customer writes. It does not cover error cases or what happens if the conversation is not open.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words; the purpose and options are front-loaded, followed by the lifecycle outcome.

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 three-parameter mutation tool, the description covers purpose, both modes, and the auto-return behavior, while annotations supply the safety profile and the schema handles parameter details. Missing only edge-case behavior (e.g., closed or already-snoozed conversations) and error expectations.

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 'until', 'untilReply', and 'conversationId'. The description references both snooze modes but adds no format, naming, or precedence detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Snooze a conversation') and clarifies the effect ('Hide an open conversation until a time, or until the customer replies'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like unsnooze_conversation or restore_conversation.

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 two snooze modes ('until a time, or until the customer replies') imply when the tool applies, giving implicit usage guidance. However, it names no alternatives and provides no when-not conditions or prerequisites beyond 'open conversation'.

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