iam_timer_snooze

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. It states the intended action but does not disclose side effects—what happens to the original due time, whether the timer must be in a certain state, what errors occur, or whether the operation is idempotent. The only extra behavioral constraint is the ISO-8601 timezone-aware format.

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 entire description is one sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, includes the condition ('outstanding') and the required input format (ISO timezone-aware). Every word earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the description avoids the need to explain return values. But the overall context is thin: no annotation coverage, no caveats, no failure expectations. The description is usable for an agent, but leaves gaps in fully understanding when and how to invoke it safely.

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%, and the schema gives no parameter descriptions. The description helps by indicating that due_at is an ISO-8601 timezone-aware timestamp and that a single existing/outstanding timer is being modified, which maps timer_id to the target timer. However, it does not explain how to obtain timer_id or whether due_at must be in the future.

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 names the specific action on the specific resource: 'Move one outstanding timer to a new ISO-8601 timezone-aware due time.' It clearly conveys rescheduling an existing timer, and the contrast with sibling tools like timer_set (which creates timers) is implied by the word 'outstanding'.

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 description implies usage for existing/outstanding timers but does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives such as iam_timer_set or iam_timer_cancel. There is no when-not guidance, so the agent has to infer context from sibling names and the phrase 'outstanding'.

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