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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important mutation-safety pattern: the first call is a non-destructive preview and only confirm=true commits. It does not say whether cancellation is reversible, who may cancel, or what happens to an already-fired wake.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed immediately by the invocation protocol. Every clause 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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical confirm gate but omits what the preview returns, error/not-found behavior, and whether the cancellation is permanent.

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 only 33% (only inbox is documented), so the description must compensate. It does clarify confirm (preview vs execute) and identifies wake_id as the target, but adds no format or constraint detail for wake_id and does not address the optional inbox.

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 ("Cancel a pending wake-up") plus the keying parameter (wake_id). It is trivially distinguishable from its siblings wake_schedule_wake and wake_check_wakes, which schedule and inspect rather than cancel.

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?

Gives explicit procedural guidance: call once without confirm to preview, then again with confirm=true. This tells the agent how to invoke it safely, though it names no alternatives and states no when-not-to-use condition.

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