wake_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that delay_seconds is relative to now, that repeat_every_seconds only affects subsequent firings and does not move the next fire time on its own, and that editing is restricted to pending wakes. It also implies return behavior by pointing to wake_get for verification. These are significant behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 dense paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose but packs many caveats and type-specific details into one block. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be improved with bullet points or separate sentences for the idle-wake restriction. It is concise enough, not verbose, but not optimally structured.

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, 1 required, nuanced semantics, and output schema exists), the description covers all essential behavioral and usage aspects: in-place edit, relative timing, interval behavior, pending-only restriction, and type-specific rules. The output schema covers return values, so no further explanation is needed. Nothing critical is missing.

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 only 20% (project_id), so the description must explain the other parameters. It clearly explains delay_seconds ('RELATIVE TO NOW... moves the next fire time to now + delay_seconds'), repeat_every_seconds (affects only subsequent firings), and the nature of body (subset of fields). It also states that any subset can be provided, clarifying optionality. This fully compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb-object pair: 'Edit a pending wake-up you own, in place, without minting a new id.' This immediately distinguishes it from wake_set (which creates a new id) and wake_cancel (which removes). The purpose is unambiguous and the resource is named.

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 provides explicit conditions for use: 'Only a still-pending wake can be edited' and 'use wake_get to read the result back.' It also clarifies the distinction between delay wakes (from wake_set) and idle wakes (from wake_when_idle), explaining that only body can be edited on idle wakes. This effectively routes the agent to the right tool and behavior.

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