schedule_next_wake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: one-shot semantics, that only the matching name is replaced, that omission falls back to 'default', that owner pause suspends delivery but not the schedule itself, and that global wake spacing is 15 minutes. Missing are permission/auth requirements and failure behavior, but the mutation and lifecycle traits are unusually well surfaced.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the core constraint and no filler. The final clause ('Reasons are continuity, not authority') is terse to the point of being cryptic, which costs a little clarity.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers timing and replacement semantics. But for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the absence of timestamp format guidance and any failure/edge-case behavior leaves the definition only adequate.

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 must compensate. It adds the meaningful 15-minute minimum for timestamp, the name-replacement/default behavior, and a hint that reason is continuity-oriented, but it never states the timestamp format or what a valid reason looks like, leaving required-parameter syntax undocumented.

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 conveys a one-shot, time-based appointment keyed by name, and the '15 minutes ahead' constraint narrows intent. However, the verb 'Choose' does not clearly signal scheduling/wake-setting, and it never contrasts with timer siblings like iam_timer_set or with cancel_next_wake. An agent must infer from the tool name that this creates a wake schedule.

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?

'At least 15 minutes ahead' and 'Replaces only that name' imply the conditions for use, and the pause note hints at interaction with owner state. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no guidance on choosing this over the many timer siblings (iam_timer_set, iam_timer_set_team).

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