Snooze a group conversation for the caller. Affects only the caller's participant row.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| duration | No | One of: 1h, 3h, until_morning, 1d, 1w | 1h |
| conversation_id | Yes | UUID of the group conversation |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but no destructiveness. The description adds that it only affects the caller's participant row, clarifying the scope of the mutation. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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 that convey all necessary information with no redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given that an output schema exists (context indicates true) and the tool performs a straightforward self-scoped mutation, the description adequately covers the essential behavior. It could mention that the duration parameter controls the snooze period, but that is covered by the schema.
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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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?
The description states the action ('Snooze'), the resource ('group conversation'), and explicitly limits scope ('for the caller. Affects only the caller's participant row.'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like colony_snooze_conversation or colony_unsnooze_group.
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 implies usage context (for snoozing a group conversation for oneself) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like colony_mute_group_conversation or colony_snooze_conversation. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.