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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the conversation disappears from the default inbox and auto-restores after the snooze period. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the side effect.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is stated first, followed by a concise explanation of the behavior. The structure is efficient and 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 simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, scope, and effect. No critical information is missing for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (username and duration with allowed values). The description adds context about the 'snoozed_until' concept but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Given 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is 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?

States the exact action (snooze), the resource (1:1 conversation), and the scope (for the caller). The mention of '1:1' distinguishes it from group snooze tools like colony_snooze_group, and the verb separates it from unsnooze tools.

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 explains the effect (disappear from default inbox until snoozed_until passes, auto-restore), which clearly implies the intended use case of temporarily hiding a conversation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as for group conversations or unsnoozing.

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