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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses what is persisted (notes, thread ID, next step), where it is delivered (callback URL vs held for check_wakes), and that an unconfirmed call saves nothing. It does not cover failure modes, tier limits, or repeat behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and mechanism, then the operational rule. No filler or repetition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent, delivery behavior, and the confirm workflow adequately. Minor gaps remain around tier limits, repeat semantics, and error/permission behavior, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so every parameter (when, inbox, state, confirm, thread_id, callback_url, repeat_minutes) is already documented. The description restates the confirm preview workflow but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, leaving it at the baseline 3.

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 ('Schedule a wake-up for your agent') and immediately explains the mechanism (POSTs saved state to callback URL, or holds it for check_wakes). An agent can distinguish this from cancel_wake/check_wakes without opening the schema.

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 an explicit reason to use it ('so a later, fresh session picks up where this one stopped'), names the alternative path (check_wakes when no callback_url), and prescribes the exact call sequence: preview without confirm, show the user, then call with confirm=true.

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