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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states a critical side effect: 'Does NOT modify the note body — only updates the snoozed_until frontmatter field.' It also reveals the external effect on list_stale_notes, which is valuable behavioral context. It doesn't cover authorization or reversibility, but the core transparency is solid.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the effect and use case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or tautological phrasing.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the action, the trigger condition, the side effect, and the non-effect. No additional context is needed for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by naming the underlying field 'snoozed_until' and explaining how the 'days' parameter affects list_stale_notes visibility. This contextualizes the parameters without duplicating schema text.

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 opens with 'Snooze the stale-decay reminder for a note by setting snoozed_until,' which clearly names the action, resource, and mechanism. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_stale_notes and confirm_note by explaining its specific role in the stale-note workflow.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when a note is still accurate but hasn't been formally refreshed.' It also explains the consequence on list_stale_notes, which implies when not to use (when the note is not accurate). It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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