sleep_timer

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the delayed side effect, replacement semantics ('calling again replaces it'), cancel-safety, the exact HTTP call on expiry, quota (1 read now; 1 pause on expiry), and the in-process-only lifespan. This goes well beyond what the schema or annotations would convey.

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 compact and information-dense: behavior first, differentiation second, quota third, and lifespan last. Every sentence provides useful operational detail, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—4 parameters, delayed mutation, no output schema, and no annotations—the description covers the essential behavior, side effects, lifecycle, quota, and sibling distinction. An agent can call this tool correctly and understand the operational constraints without additional context.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the description itself only elaborates on the timer duration. The description adds no new meaning for parameters like dry_run, device_id, or response_format beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Keep music playing and auto-pause after N minutes' and specifies the exact mechanism ('registers an in-process timer...fires PUT /me/player/pause on expiry'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from schedule_wind_down, so an agent can tell it apart from a close sibling without inspecting schemas.

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?

It names the key alternative (schedule_wind_down) and gives the differentiator ('No fade — distinct from stepped schedule_wind_down'). It also clarifies the timer is process-local, which is critical for deciding whether this tool will persist across server restarts. This is explicit enough to guide tool selection.

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