snooze_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Defer resurfacing' implies a mutation (snoozing), but it doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to the node's state. It lacks details on effects like notifications or updates to due dates.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (mutation with nested parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description has 0% schema description coverage, but it compensates by implying the purpose of the single parameter (a state object for deferral). However, it doesn't explain the nested 'nodeId' and 'until' fields or their formats. Since there's effectively 1 parameter (the state object), the baseline is high, but some semantic gaps remain.

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 'Defer resurfacing to a later date' is vague about what 'resurfacing' means and what resource is being acted upon. It doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'complete_node' or 'get_due_items'. While it hints at postponing something, it lacks specificity about the 'node' resource mentioned in the schema.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'complete_node' or 'search_nodes'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when a node needs deferral), or exclusions. It's a standalone statement with no comparative context.

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