snooze_idea

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Move ... later' implies mutation, but there is no disclosure of what happens when both `until` and `minutes` are supplied, whether the change is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the call returns.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Slightly too terse given the unresolved ambiguity around the two time parameters.

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?

A mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and confusable siblings. The description does not supply enough to call it correctly in edge cases (both time params given, missing due date) or to pick it over park_idea.

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; it does partially by naming `until` (date text) and `minutes` and implying a choice via 'or'. However, it leaves the `id` parameter and the accepted date-text format unspecified, and never resolves precedence or mutual exclusivity between the two timing params.

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 and resource: moving an idea's due date later. Clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from sibling park_idea (plausibly a similar deferral action) or update_idea, which could also alter a due date.

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 second sentence is parameter usage, not tool-selection guidance. There is no statement of when to snooze versus park_idea or update_idea, nor any precondition such as the idea needing an existing due date.

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