snooze_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the basic behavior (snooze until time, reappear) but omits important details: whether the email is moved to a special folder, what happens to existing snoozed emails, authorization needs, or rate limits. The sibling 'list_snoozed_emails' hints at a dedicated state, but the description does not mention it.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and consequence. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, or the lifecycle of snoozed emails (e.g., can they be unsnoozed early?). The sibling 'list_snoozed_emails' indicates a separate listing, but the description doesn't integrate this context. Important behavioral details 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning or examples beyond the schema. It does not clarify the format of 'snoozeUntil' beyond what the schema's description already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool snoozes an email until a specified time and that it reappears. It uses a specific verb ('snooze') and resource ('email'), and the effect is described. It distinguishes from siblings like 'flag_email' or 'move_email' by focusing on temporal hiding, but could be slightly more specific about the reappearance mechanism.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or contrast with related tools like 'list_snoozed_emails' or 'move_email'. The usage context is only implied through the tool's purpose.

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