iam_timer_set

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It indicates 'Set' (a mutation) and 'one-shot', but it does not disclose side effects, whether an existing timer is replaced, permissions, or what happens after scheduling. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence states the action, target, and time-format requirement with no filler. For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, this is appropriately compact.

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 simple two-string-parameter shape and presence of an output schema, the core action and due_at format make the tool minimally viable. However, with no annotations, it should also address side effects of setting a timer and clarify the note parameter, so completeness is only partial.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds a genuinely useful constraint for due_at ('ISO-8601 timezone-aware time'), but note remains described only by its schema title. This is partial compensation, not complete parameter documentation.

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 opens with 'Set a one-shot reminder for this mailbox' – a specific verb and resource, and it adds a useful temporal constraint (ISO-8601 timezone-aware time). It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like iam_timer_set_team or iam_timer_snooze, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'one-shot reminder for this mailbox' wording implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or naming of alternatives among the timer siblings. It is enough to infer the basic use case, but not enough to confidently choose between iam_timer_set, iam_timer_set_team, and iam_timer_snooze.

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