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

The description repeats the idempotentHint from annotations, adding no new information on that front. It discloses the specific mutation (clearing a field) but does not mention potential side effects, failure conditions, or permission requirements. Since annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that states the action and scope immediately. Every word contributes value—there is no fluff or redundancy. It is a model of conciseness.

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 the tool is a simple idempotent mutation with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It does not explain what happens if the conversation does not exist, but the idempotentHint implies safe repeated calls. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to invoke 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 covers the single 'username' parameter 100%, with a clear description of what it expects. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline 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 clearly states the action: clearing the 'snoozed_until' field on a 1:1 conversation. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the '1:1' qualifier distinguishes it from group conversation tools like colony_unsnooze_group. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 specifies the scope ('1:1 conversation') which implicitly tells the agent this is not for group conversations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like colony_unsnooze_group or colony_snooze_conversation. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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