iam_timer_set_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful requirement: 'explicit timer.schedule permission is required.' It does not describe side effects, whether existing timers are replaced, or success/confirmation behavior, but the key permission constraint is present.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the permission caveat is appended cleanly. Every word contributes to either purpose or behavioral context.

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?

The tool has 3 required parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description does not clarify parameter semantics or routing among sibling timer tools. An agent would have to guess at the due_at format and target identifier. The presence of an output schema avoids the need to explain return values, but the remaining gaps are significant.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for target, note, or due_at (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only implies that target is a teammate; it does not explain expected due_at format, note content, or how target should be identified. This is insufficient given the complete absence of schema-level 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Schedule a timer' for 'one authorized teammate.' This scope distinguishes it from sibling iam_timer_set_team, which implies a team-level timer, and from the other timer tools. Even without naming siblings, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for one authorized teammate' implies this tool is for single-teammate timers, and the permission note gives a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over iam_timer_set or iam_timer_set_team, nor any exclusions or fallback conditions.

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