wake_set

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real mechanism the annotations cannot: the body is injected as a fresh user turn into a terminal, tagged with a wake counter, and defaults to THIS session. It omits failure/expiry behavior and how the wake can be cancelled (wake_cancel exists), which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation, then defaults, then the body-authoring guidance. Every sentence carries information, though the body-writing advice in the final sentence is somewhat verbose for the delivery it provides.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the definition covers the injection mechanism, the default target, and how to author the body. The remaining gap is repeat_every_seconds semantics and the wake lifecycle (cancellation/update) relative to its wake_* siblings.

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 coverage is 40%; deliver_to and project_id carry schema descriptions, and the description usefully explains delay_seconds' effect and prescribes what body should contain. However repeat_every_seconds is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (schedule a wake-up) and goes further by explaining the delivery mechanism: after delay_seconds the body is typed into the target session's terminal as a fresh user turn, prefixed [hive wake #N]. This is enough to distinguish it from wake_when_idle, wake_get, and wake_cancel without opening their schemas.

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?

"Use instead of polling" is an explicit when-to-use directive, and the closing sentence gives conditional guidance for the own-lead-pane case. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives (wake_when_idle, agent_send) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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