snooze_reminder

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers only the basic mutation intent. It does not say whether the operation requires permissions, whether snoozing a completed reminder fails, whether it is reversible, or how the two input modes interact — all material for a mutation tool.

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?

A single sentence with no waste, front-loading the action and the two mechanisms. It is appropriately terse for a simple mutation, though the terseness contributes to the semantic gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% parameter documentation the description is too thin. Critical calling details — mode precedence, default behavior, failure conditions — are 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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only loosely maps to 'minutes' and 'target_iso' and says nothing about reminder_id, the 15-minute default, mutual exclusivity between the two modes, or expected ISO format.

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 ('snooze') and resource ('reminder') and explains the two mechanisms (target ISO datetime or N minutes), which clearly separates it from create_reminder, complete_reminder, and list_reminders. It stops short of naming a sibling, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or on prerequisites (e.g., must the reminder be pending?). The two modes are mentioned but with no indication of which to pick, what happens if both are supplied, or what the default 15 minutes means in context.

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