snooze

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

Explains side effects in detail ('removes INBOX, adds a dated MCP/Snoozed label'), notes reversibility ('reversible via unsnooze'), and describes the resurfacing trigger ('sweep_snoozed runs'). This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true) and is consistent with them.

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?

Structured and front-loaded: one-sentence summary, then detailed `until` format, then usage guidance, then side effects. Every sentence adds value; the length is justified by the complexity of the `until` parameter.

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?

Covers the operation, timing semantics, side effects, reversibility, and usage boundaries. With an output schema present, no return-value explanation is needed, and the description is sufficient for an agent to select 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?

Schema has no descriptions for either parameter (0% coverage), but the description provides exhaustive detail for `until`, including explicit date/time formats, presets, and trailing times. `threadId` is self-explanatory from its name, so the description compensates fully.

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?

Clearly identifies the operation ('Snooze a thread') and its resource ('thread'), and explains the mechanism (archives now, resurfaces later). It also distinguishes from siblings by stating 'DO NOT USE for permanent removal (use archive or trash).'

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('USE WHEN: deferring a thread to a later date/time instead of leaving it in the inbox') and when not to ('DO NOT USE: for permanent removal (use archive or trash)'), naming alternatives.

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