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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a two-phase preview-then-commit behavior, which is real additional context, but it says nothing about permissions needed, what happens if the wake_id is invalid or already fired, or whether the action is reversible.

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 tight sentences, with the resource and identifier front-loaded and the workflow immediately after. No filler or redundancy.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core interaction pattern but omits error behavior, permission requirements, and what the preview actually returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33%, but the description meaningfully fills the most important gap by explaining confirm's role as a preview/commit switch. wake_id is self-evident and the inbox parameter goes entirely unexplained in the description, so it compensates only partially for the low coverage.

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 a specific verb (cancel) and resource (a pending wake-up) keyed by wake_id. It is clearly distinct from schedule_wake in practice, but it never names or contrasts with its siblings, leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

It gives an explicit invocation workflow: call once without confirm to preview, then with confirm=true. That is concrete usage context, though it offers no conditions for choosing cancel_wake over siblings like check_wakes or schedule_wake, nor any when-not-to-use guidance.

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