wake_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the body is typed as a fresh user turn prefixed with '[hive wake #N]', and that it may arrive in a session with none of the current conversation. It also explains the default delivery target. It doesn't mention cancellation or repeat behavior in detail, but the core side effects are clearly disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core mechanism, then adds usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, though the final sentence about the own lead pane is slightly dense and could be clearer. It is appropriately sized for a tool with this many behavioral nuances.

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 tool's complexity (5 params, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what happens, where it delivers by default, how to write the body, and when to override project scope. It doesn't explain repeat_every_seconds or how to cancel, but those are discoverable via sibling tools (wake_cancel) and the output schema. The description is complete enough for correct invocation in most cases.

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 only 40% (2 of 5 params have descriptions), so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of delay_seconds and body ('after delay_seconds the body is typed...'), and clarifies deliver_to's default ('Defaults to delivering to THIS session'). It also gives guidance on project_id. The only param not addressed is repeat_every_seconds, but the overall compensation is strong.

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 ('Schedule a wake-up') and resource (a delayed message typed into a target session's terminal), and distinguishes it from polling. It also names the sibling alternative (wake_when_idle) implicitly by contrast, and the sibling list includes wake_cancel/wake_list/wake_get/wake_update, so the agent can tell this is the creation/scheduling variant.

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 explicitly says 'Use instead of polling' and gives concrete guidance on when to use the default delivery vs. deliver_to, plus a strong directive to write the body self-contained because it may arrive in a session without context. It also warns against using project_id unless the user explicitly asks for another project, which is exactly the kind of when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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