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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does most of it well: it discloses the destination of saved state (callback POST vs. held for check_wakes), the mandatory two-step preview-then-confirm workflow, and what gets saved (notes, thread ID, next step). It does not cover failure modes, authentication requirements (only hinted at in the schema), or rate limits, so it falls short of complete.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, then the confirmation procedure. Nothing is padding, though the callback/check_wakes contrast appears twice (once at the top and again implicitly in the confirm instruction), which is slightly redundant.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested state object and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, the persistence model, and the preview/confirm safety pattern adequately. Missing details are mostly operational edge cases (auth via inbox/API key, error behavior) that an agent could infer or discover.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining the confirm parameter's role in the two-step preview/save flow and by clarifying that the callback URL is what determines whether state is pushed or held. The nested 'state' object and inbox secrecy/API-key behavior are left to the schema.

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 and resource ('Schedule a wake-up for your agent') and immediately explains the mechanism: at the chosen time, saved state is POSTed to a callback URL or held for check_wakes. This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling tools wake_cancel_wake and wake_check_wakes, which handle cancellation and retrieval rather than creation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('so a later, fresh session picks up where this one stopped'), names the alternative retrieval path ('Without it, collect wakes with check_wakes'), and prescribes the exact operational sequence: call once without confirm to preview, show the user, then call again with confirm=true.

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