hey_reply_later

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

Annotations already declare this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds genuinely new context: reversibility via hey_remove_reply_later, the postingId prerequisite from hey_list_reply_later, and the return shape {success, error?}. It stops short of describing side effects like removal from the Imbox, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short clauses: action, reversal path, decision rule with alternative. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, the undo path, and the routing rule against a sibling — everything an agent needs to call and recover from this tool correctly.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented there (topicId or entryId from list operations), so the baseline applies. The description's mention of postingId pertains to the reversal tool rather than the input, adding no new meaning about the argument itself.

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 ('Move an email thread to Reply Later') and explicitly contrasts with siblings hey_set_aside and hey_remove_reply_later, so an agent can distinguish it without opening other 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('emails you intend to respond to but not right now') and when-not-to-use with a named alternative ('if no reply is planned, use hey_set_aside instead'), plus the reversal path. Nothing is left to inference.

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